Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to assist the democratisation of South Africa.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Since the House rose for the summer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has held talks with President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, in which he restated our support for the transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa. I met Chief Buthelezi. We are discussing with our EC partners, the Commonwealth and the United Nations practical ways to help ensure free and fair elections in South Africa. The mandates of all the observer missions to which we contribute to help stem violence have been extended until next April's elections. Last year, we spent £11 million on direct aid to South Africa, and a similar amount via the EC programmes. We are funding more than 1,000 black South Africans on training courses here and in South Africa. I think that this is money well spent.

Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me and, I am sure, all hon. Members in congratulating Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk on the award of their Nobel peace prize? Does he agree that in the difficult transitional period to a genuine multiracial and democratic society, the international community must give every assistance to help that process?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if South Africa sought to rejoin the Commonwealth and it was felt that that would help assist South Africa in achieving its internal goals, the Government and the international community within the Commonwealth would agree to South Africa's rejoining?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend about the award of the Nobel peace prize. The State President and Mr. Mandela have worked nobly together, and it is right that they should receive the award together.
I also agree with my hon. Friend's second point. It will be for South Africa when the time comes to decide whether she wishes to apply to rejoin the Commonwealth. We would certainly warmly welcome that. It would bring to a happy end a sad chapter in the history of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Robert Hughes: May I associate myself with the congratulations to President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela? May I also commend the Government for what they have done so far, especially in the Commonwealth communiqué which recognises the elections to be held in April 1994 as of historic significance?
May I also commend the Government for recognising that the process is still fragile, and that much needs to be done between now and April to ensure that the elections are seen to be free and fair? While the Commonwealth and EC are doing a lot, what new initiatives will the Foreign Secretary take within the United Nations to make sure that the maximum amount of money is made available before the election for the training of people in the election


process, and to make sure that the result when it comes is accepted by every party in the country as leading to a new democratic South Africa?

Mr. Hurd: The Government are not used to receiving praise from the hon. Gentleman on that subject, so I am grateful to him. I agree with him on his last point. I listed the things that we are doing. It is important that the April elections should be seen to be free and fair. We have a lot of experience in this country. That is available to the South Africans, and they know it.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend knows how difficult it is to help the political parties to build up their own activities such as training and their understanding of the purpose of elections, particularly in the rural areas. In that context, will my right hon. Friend note the activities of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy? That all-party group was set up with Foreign Office funding, and it is trying to find ways to assist the democratic process in South Africa.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right, and perhaps I should have mentioned that earlier. What the foundation is doing in South Africa is a sign that the House was wise to set it up on an all-party basis. I am anxious that good South African projects should come before the foundation which are worth considering and which can be approved. They should not be from just one group.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I also welcome all that the Government have done and the support for the foundation. On a specific point, does the Foreign Secretary believe that anything more can be done to try to ensure that Chief Buthelezi participates fully in the process between now and next April? He is a significant player in the South African game, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that no effort should be spared to ensure that he participates fully in the process before, during and after the elections.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; that is why we welcomed Chief Buthelezi here in September. We are saying to him, "You should rejoin the process", and we are saying to others, "Don't believe that he can safely be kept out." He is an important player, and he occasionally feels that he has been isolated. It is very important that he should rejoin the process.

Human Rights

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Minister of Belgium to discuss international co-operation on human rights.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets the Belgian Foreign Minister regularly.

Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware of the arrest on 18 October in Brussels of Mr. Amanullah Khan, the chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front? I thank the Minister's office for conveying a request from myself and other hon. Members to visit Mr. Khan in prison which, regrettably, the Belgian authorities have, to date, refused. May I urge Her Majesty's Government to press the Belgian authorities to release Mr. Khan, who was visiting Belgium

on a valid visitor's visa issued by the Belgian authorities and doing his best to bring a peaceful solution to the Kashmir conflict?

Mr. Hogg: I am indeed aware of the arrest of Mr. Amanullah Khan. As the hon. Gentleman, I think, will know, he was arrested on the basis of an Interpol warrant. As to whether he should be released and whether there is the possibility of delivering him to India, those are matters for the Belgian Government.

Miss Emma Nicholson: When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets the Belgian Foreign Minister, will he draw to his attention the profoundly important statement made by Prince Charles in Oxford last week in which he described the policy of Saddam Hussein towards the marshlands as "obscene lies"? May I congratulate the Minister on his statement contained in the film that was shown last week and urge him to support the work of Prince Charles by bringing to the UN Security Council the force and vigour that Prince Charles brought to Oxford and force the Security Council to implement the many resolutions it has passed, which at the moment are not worth the paper they are written on?

Mr. Hogg: As we are in the business of congratulating one another, may I congratulate my hon. Friend in this important respect? She has done more than anyone to draw the attention of the House and a wider public to what Saddam Hussein is doing in south Iraq with regard to the arabs in the marshes. That is a terrible business. The world community is alert to it, and that is due, in no small degree, to what my hon. Friend has done.

Mr. Kaufman: In his discussions on human rights, will the Minister take up the question of human rights in Jamaica, where, despite the welcome judgment of the Privy Council this week, many men are being held in appalling conditions on death row and where, for example, a prisoner called Lynden Champagnie, who has been on death row for 14 years since he was a teenager, has now been told after his sentence was commuted that he cannot be considered for parole for another 10 years? Is not the attitude of the Jamaican Government on that issue a disgrace and a scandal? Will the Government make that clear to the Jamaican Government?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly welcome the decision of the Privy Council. I have always thought that that type of question, particularly that of the death penalty, is essentially a matter for national Governments. I agree that one is entitled to have regard to the conditions in which people are held. I also agree that, when people are held too long on what is generally referred to as death row, it is an undesirable state of affairs. In general terms, whether or not there is a death penalty and whether it is carried out is a matter for national Governments.

Mr. Ward: Does my right and learned hon. Friend agree that the focal point in Europe for human rights is the Council of Europe? Will he do all he can to encourage it in its work on human rights, and encourage other nations to sign up to the various conventions?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has asked three questions to which there are three answers, each of which is yes.

Mr. Rogers: The Government have correctly refused to recognise Indonesia's illegal occupation of East Timor and


have supported the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. In view of the appalling human rights record of Indonesia, would it not be logical for the Government to extend their position and support the United Nations resolutions that proscribe the sale of arms to aggressor states, especially weapons that can be used for internal repression, and the diminution of human rights?

Mr. Hogg: We consider any applications to sell arms on a case-by-case basis. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the contract to sell Hawk aircraft. If we had stood in the way of that contract, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain.

Middle East

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further contribution Her Majesty's Government intend to make to the progress of talks between middle eastern countries in the moves towards peace in that region.

Mr. Hurd: We shall continue acts of support for the peace talks, both politically through our contacts with the parties and economically.

Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he try to bring pressure to bear on the Arab countries to end the Arab boycott of trade with Israel when he has further talks with all the parties involved in the middle east peace process? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind, when considering the position of the various parties in that process, that the only democracy in the region is Israel and that there are great concerns about the position of some other countries on a variety of issues including Syria in particular? Does he agree that, while it is in our interest to promote peaceful talks between all the parties and encourage the development of the peace process, those concerns need to be recognised?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend about the boycott. There has been some progress—if he listens to British firms he will know of the welcome announcement from the Government of Kuwait during the summer—but not yet enough, and we shall continue to urge more. We need a comprehensive settlement. The Israel-PLO accord is a dramatic breakthrough which the House has welcomed, and Israel and the PLO are trying to put it into practice.
There will not be comprehensive peace until there are agreements between Israel and Jordan, Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon. While it is right that the sensitivities of Israeli democracy should be understood and respected—we always try to do that—equally, it is important that none of the three other tracks, with Jordan, with Syria and with the Lebanon, should be long neglected.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that, if the accord signed by those two brave peoples is to work, the peace talks taking place in Taba must be assisted wherever they can be? Does he have any intention of raising with our European partners the possible attendance of a member of the troika to assist in that dialogue in Taba, which has unfortunately broken down?
Can he tell the House of any other initiatives that the European Parliament intends to take to ease the pressure in Gaza? Did the Minister of State take up the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr.

Cunningham) made at Brighton to invite Chairman Arafat to Britain to express his needs on behalf of the Palestinian people?

Mr. Hurd: I can point out what we are doing. I went to Syria not long ago in order to establish our credentials and our interests in that part. On Monday, in Brussels, Mr. Arafat will come at my suggestion and meet the European Foreign Affairs Council. I will be there. He will be coming to London in December. I think that there is a question on the Order Paper about that. I hope to go to Gaza, Israel and Jordan in the next recess. We British want to do our utmost to keep the process on the move and, where we can, give useful and practical support to do so.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today the PLO has admitted that Ron Arad is still being held in captivity, seven years after he became a prisoner of war? [Interruption.] Is not that, as my hon. Friend says, quite disgraceful? Did my right hon. Friend raise that matter with the Syrians when he saw them? May we have an assurance that he will raise it with Arab leaders whenever he meets them?

Mr. Hurd: We have often raised that sad case with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who might be able to help. There is a multitude of tragedies arising out of wars and terrorist activities in recent years; Mr. Arad is certainly one of them, and he deserves our support.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: What weight do the Government presently attach to the Damascus declaration? What is the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the likelihood of persuading the states of the Gulf Co-operation Council to make better provision for their joint defence?

Mr. Hurd: I am all in favour of their making greater provision for their joint defence, and I never cease to urge that on them. The Damascus declaration envisages that they could receive help from Syria and Egypt in that. We support that idea. It is up to them to decide how to put it into practice.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments following his successful visit to Syria. Does he appreciate that many of us would like to see the United Kingdom taking a rather more prominent role in trying to support the peace process, which has been achieved with remarkable courage and vision on both sides? Will my right hon. Friend concentrate on the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in particular? How does he see their future?

Mr. Hurd: We will try to take a more visible role. We have deliberately held back, as my hon. Friend knows, in recent years in order not to complicate what correctly seemed to us to be a genuine effort by the United States Administration to get things moving. Now we are in more open country, as it were, and I think that there is scope for more visible activity by ourselves, in support, as my hon. Friend said, of the peace process.
My hon. Friend is quite right about the refugees, not just in Lebanon but on the west bank and in Gaza. We are in the lead—£6 million a year—in supporting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We shall see more of that in January. I am also very anxious that there should be an Israel-Lebanon accord which can enable a settling down on that particularly difficult part of Israel's border.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision to invite Mr. Yasser Arafat to London for discussions. Is not it clear, though, that, based on many of the other comments—for example, the ending of the Arab boycott—the next key decision will be, if possible, and we hope that it will be possible, an agreement between Syria and Israel on the full guarantee of peace and security for Israel, contingent upon a full withdrawal by the Israelis from Syrian territory?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about his discussions with President Assad about those matters? Does he share our concern at the rather abrupt break-off of discussions in Taba this week, apparently because the Israelis are now saying that they do not intend to withdraw their military from Gaza but simply to redeploy them? Is not that rather a negation of what has been agreed?

Mr. Hurd: President Assad and Mr. Shara'a made it clear that they believed in "total withdrawal" and "total peace". Of course, what remains to be worked out is what each of those phrases means. That can be done only between the parties. There is talk in Israel of a need to digest the Israel-PLO accord—that is, to allow time to pass. I think that that is reasonable, provided that it does not go on for ever. That is the Syrian view, too. That is why it is important to stress that a comprehensive agreement includes Israel and Syria.
I should be disturbed if I thought that the Taba discussions had broken down. I believe that what has happened is that the PLO, and the Palestinians in particular, feel the need for a break in order to consult. There is no doubt about the obligations undertaken by Israel as regards military withdrawal. It has always been clear that they are rather difficult to turn into practical arrangements. It is important that that work should continue.

European Free Trade Association

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in respect of the EFTA states joining the European Community.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The European Council last week reaffirmed the 1 January 1995 target date for accession by the four applicants. Good progress is being made towards the object of completing the negotiations by 1 March next year.

Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of the EFTA states will be welcome, because not only will they be much-needed and welcome net contributors to the EC budget, but they will be a powerful force for free trade, which will benefit and strengthen the entire Community?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we welcome the prospect of the four states acceding to the Community. They will be net contributors to the budget, so they will share our interest in enforcing budgetary discipline and controlling expenditure. Their instincts, too, are towards free trade and openness to the rest of the world. Therefore, they share our vision of the Community as one that is open and diverse.

Mr. Radice: What are the institutional implications of the accession of the EFTA countries to the EC?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There will have to be some institutional adjustments to accept those four countries into the Community. That will be part of the discussions taking place between existing member states. But we wish to confine the debate to what is required by the prospect of enlargement and do not wish to reopen those institutional issues, which were essentially settled by the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Channon: Will my hon. Friend tell us what Her Majesty's Government propose about the voting system to be used in the Community once the welcome accession of those countries takes place?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: One of the matters to be decided is how many votes to accord to each of the countries coming in and what will constitute a qualified majority vote. A number of ideas are being discussed, but no final resolution of that is yet in prospect.

Middle East

Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet Chairman Arafat to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to meet representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to discuss the middle east peace plan.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As my right hon. Friend has just said, Chairman Arafat has been invited to visit Britain. The visit will take place in December. Precise dates will be announced nearer the time. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to meet him in Brussels with other EC Foreign Ministers on 8 November.

Mr. Parry: I understand that when Mr. Arafat comes to London, he is expecting to meet both the Labour party and Conservative party on middle east councils. The Prime Minister has replied to me that he expects to meet Mr. Arafat. This historic visit can only mean peace, both in Israel and Palestine.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Arafat will be a welcome visitor to London. It is certainly true that the Prime Minister hopes to see him. I was not aware of the two other meetings that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but it sounds like a jolly good idea to me.

Mr. Canavan: In view of yesterday's suspension of talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, due apparently to the Israelis' insistence on a mere redeployment of their troops rather than a complete withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, will the British Government use their influence within the international community to try to ensure that the Israeli Government stand by their commitment for complete withdrawal, as contained in the 13 September agreement?

Mr. Hogg: Both parties are, of course, negotiating at the moment. I am not unduly depressed by what has happened; I regard it as a suspension rather than anything else. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in the sense that both parties must stand by their commitments, must show


flexibility and must ensure that the momentum is maintained if public opinion in the occupied territories and in Israel itself is to continue to support the peace process.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets Mr. Arafat or any other Arab leaders, will he point out that if the Arab nations are genuine in their pursuit of the peace process, the immediate release of Ron Arad and the immediate ending of the iniquitous Arab boycott will do more than anything to build confidence in the process? Will he urge those conclusions on them?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I think that it is important that everyone who is now party to the negotiations recognises the need to carry the opinion in the opposite camp. That means that the Arabs and the Palestinians must stop the violence, relax the boycott and show that there are positive benefits to Israel from the courageous steps that it has taken.
It also means that the state of Israel must release detainees, allow travel to, through and from Jerusalem, stop settlement and allow people from the territories to work in Israel. There must be a clear benefit to everyone in Israel and the territories as a consequence of what has been agreed; otherwise, there is a real risk that the agreement will not be underpinned by public support.

Mr. Batiste: I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. He is aware that the Israeli Government places a high premium on the ending of the secondary and tertiary boycott of Israel as part of the peace process. What evidence has he seen that the PLO, under the leadership of Mr. Yasser Arafat, is prepared to encourage its Arab friends to withdraw from that boycott?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is already encouraging evidence of a move away from the boycott, especially with regard to the secondary and tertiary boycott. But I want to be even-handed about this. It is important that there is movement from both sides in the negotiations. That means movement from the Palestinians and movement from the Arab states. It also means movement from the Israeli side. In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I indicated the sort of movement that we are looking for.

Angola

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he plans regarding the situation in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): On 1 November, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed its support for UN efforts to achieve a settlement in Angola through negotiations and its willingness, as necessary, to impose further sanctions against UNITA.

Mr. Ainsworth: Is there any justification for the continued delay in the implementation of full sanctions against the UNITA forces? We have now delayed so many times that we are in danger of losing all credibility. First, there was a delay until 1 July, then September, then another 10 days and then 1 November, and now it seems that there will be an indefinite delay. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the

House what progress has been made in spending the £5 million of emergency aid that the Government promised to the Angolan people, and whether he is prepared to give a commitment of further support in the light of the appalling conditions faced by the 70 per cent. of the population who live in the Government-controlled parts of the country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is aware that there have been discussions in Lusaka last week between the MPLA and UNITA. It is my belief that UNITA attended those talks as a result of the United Nations sanctions that have been imposed so far. It has been made clear by all the parties to those sanctions and by the United Nations that if further sanctions are necessary to bring pressure to bear on UNITA, that will be done. The fact is that some progress has been achieved so far in bringing UNITA to the table. That is the right position to be in.
As to the further aid of some £7 million announced recently, we are concentrating on the most effective use of that aid. However, it is too early to give a definite explanation of what we shall be doing.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under United Nations Security Council, resolution 864, phase 2 of the sanctions against UNITA will be imposed only if there are no further talks? Will he confirm that UNITA has now said that, notwithstanding some reported irregularities, it accepts the outcome of the elections two years ago and is prepared to sit down unconditionally and talk to the MPLA and other parties in Angola? Is that not the best way forward towards bringing peace to that tragically stricken country from the bloody civil war that is going on at present?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right: UNITA has said what he described in similar terms, but its words must be followed by actions. That is the important point to recognise. As I have said, there were discussions last week. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to take any further action at this stage. We hope that those discussions will continue in Lusaka and that there will be a fruitful outcome.

Mr. Worthington: The whole House will have been appalled at the pictures shown of the situation in Angola, which Mr. John Simpson described as the worst he had ever seen. What are we doing with our partners in the European Community to reopen this window of opportunity for humanitarian aid, not just in the stricken town of Kuito, but elsewhere? What are we doing with our partners to redouble diplomatic initiatives to bring the war to an end? I am asking not about the words that we are uttering but about the action that we are taking in the United Nations and the European Community.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thought that I had described some action. We were active in getting United Nations Security Council resolution 864, which brought pressure to bear and led to last week's discussions, as I described in my two previous answers. That is what is continuing on the diplomatic side. We have been praised by everyone for the help that we have given on the humanitarian aid side. We have been quick to respond with relief flights to the opening up of besieged cities. We have been praised by the United Nations, the media and, I believe, John Simpson for our rapid response.

Mr. Wilshire: As one of four Members of this House who were election observers in Angola, I got to know


ordinary people as well as politicians. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is happening in Angola now is a total obscenity which demands more than negotiations and more than sanctions? Compared with the obscenity of 1,000 people a day being slaughtered and others maimed, and the level of starvation of youngsters there, Bosnia—dare I say it—seems but a tragic sideshow. Will my hon. Friend therefore use his best endeavours to persuade our colleagues in the EC and the United Nations to put this obscenity behind the world and do something effective about it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as he has. I think that, on a fair analysis, he will agree with me that Britain has played a leading part in bringing about last week's negotiations. The problem will have to be addressed by the parties to the problem in Angola. We have brought pressure to bear in the United Nations through resolutions which we have sponsored actively to bring UNITA to the table. There have been discussions. We have made it clear that we shall be happy to support further, more demanding resolutions than sanctions if that is necessary. Meanwhile, we have responded enormously swiftly and successfully on the humanitarian front.

Belize

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to United Kingdom relations with Belize.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We continue to develop our already good relations with Belize. In October, the Belizean Prime Minister, Mr. Esquivel, met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Limassol and met other Ministers in London.

Mr. Gunnell: Given the August statement of the Guatemalan Vice President, in which he said that recognition of Belize was premature, and given that the new Belizean Prime Minister himself represents a rather nationalistic trend in the electorate, is the Minister confident about the stability of the relationship between Guatemala and Belize? Can he comment on what role this country can play in ensuring that stability? I am aware that the Queen is due to visit Belize early next year. Is that in part compensation for the withdrawal of British troops which is likely to have a bad effect on the economy and which many may see as a threat to their security?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Relations between Guatemala and Belize are not wholly satisfactory, but President de Leon Carpio of Guatemala has reaffirmed that his country recognises the sovereignty and independence of Belize. We have made it clear that if the situation deteriorates after the British garrison withdraws next year we stand ready to be consulted about an appropriate response.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend will be aware that I asked our hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces what specific assurances we could give the Belizean Government about their security following the withdrawal of our troops. My hon. Friend must be well aware of the concern of the Belizean Government about their security. Will he consider carefully the positive steps

that the United Kingdom Government can take to ensure that Guatemala is deterred from any intent that it might have in the future of invading Belize?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I and other Ministers discussed the matter with Prime Minister Esquivel last month. We still have the garrison in Belize, and even when that is withdrawn there will still be a training base in Belize. In May, we issued a joint statement making it clear that if the situation deteriorates we shall stand ready to co-operate and co-ordinate our activities and draw up a likely response. At present, however, we do not judge the situation to be quite so serious as my hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that the answer that he just gave on relations between Belize and Guatemala is different from those given by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), to me and to one or two of my colleagues only a few months ago? They we were told that everything was stable. Given that, even at that time, there was no agreement on the territorial waters dispute between the two countries, is it not premature to consider withdrawing British forces from Belize, where they give people confidence? Are the British Government about to do in Belize what they did when they withdrew the Endeavour from the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Belize became independent in 1981 and it was always envisaged that the British garrison might be removed, especially in the light of the 1991 recognition by Guatemala of the independence and sovereignty of Belize. That recognition has not been withdrawn. In answer to the previous question, I made clear our continuing concern and interest in the security of the region, and our continuing military involvement, albeit at a lower level.

Mr. Garel-Jones: As a general principle, dictatorships cause and start wars and democracies win them. Does my hon. Friend agree that events in Guatemala, following the removal of President Serrano, demonstrate the way in which central America, and indeed Latin America as a whole, has consolidated behind a democratic president in that republic?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The continuity of British foreign policy in Latin America is demonstrated by the fact that I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said.

European Foreign Policies

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

Mr. Hurd: I meet our partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.

Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of common European Community foreign policies will be greatly facilitated by the Maastricht treaty, and that that will enable the Community, with the participation of Britain, to exert greater influence in the world?

Mr. Hurd: What happened at the summit on Friday illustrates my hon. Friend's point. There is no question of our being cajoled or out-voted, because of the treaty of Maastricht, into policies of which we disapprove. What happened, in an orderly way, was that the summit began to identify and tell the Foreign Ministers to pursue areas where it thought that they should act together. One example has already been given in the House: we shall help to monitor the elections in South Africa, to the extent that South Africans want us to. The same is true of the Russian elections next month: we suggested that there should be EC monitoring if the Russians want it, which they do. Another example is the contribution that we make towards implementing the peace process—getting Jericho and Gaza and the occupied territories into a better state to assume more responsibilities. Those are things which it makes sense for Europe to do together.

Mr. Barnes: How will we find out what Foreign Ministers are up to in the European Community, when the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers has just decided that it is now possible to block the publication of votes that come out of their meetings? We are supposed to be in favour of openness. As a result of the Edinburgh summit of Heads of State it was agreed that those votes would be published so that we would know what was taking place: will the Minister guarantee that that situation will not be changed?

Mr. Hurd: There are no votes on those matters—they are of unanimity—and the hon. Gentleman will get his information in the same way as he has always got it: by making my life uncomforable in the House of Commons. One addition that is taking place was outlined by the Government in their recent memorandum to the House of Lords European Community Committee, in which we suggested that Ministers could offer briefings in both Houses on important common foreign and security policy issues. We are willing to do that in addition to arrangements that already exist on the Floor of the House and in Committee to cross examine Ministers and officials.

Mr. Cormack: Would it not be a splendid, if modest, start to the new post-Maastricht era if the nations of the Community could ensure that this winter the starving and suffering people of Sarajevo receive adequate aid and that no one is allowed to stop it getting through?

Mr. Hurd: It is best to do exactly that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a strong record on that, both in the quality of aid that we are providing, particularly medicines, and in the efforts that our civilian drivers and troops are making to get the convoys through. The lines of communication through Serb-held territory now work reasonably well. The main problem arises partly from renewed shelling around Sarajevo, which has subsided, and fighting between Muslims and Croats in central Bosnia. I hope that the initiative that we took on Friday will enable David Owen and our local commanders to make it more possible to get that aid through. It is certainly a high priority.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the practicability of the European Community acting together in foreign policy. That commends itself to everyone. But what evidence is there, from the weak and vague statement on the situation in

Bosnia issued following the latest Council of Ministers, that any material change will take place in the circumstances which tragically prevail in Bosnia?
Although I emphatically support and praise the contribution of British troops in UNPROFOR, will the airlift to Sarajevo be stepped up as a result of last Friday's meeting? Will the finance for winter aid be increased as a result of that meeting? As a result of last Friday's discussions, will there be a serious attempt to halt, once and for all, Serbian and Croatian aggression in Bosnia? What practical difference have the discussions in Brussels made to the European Community's common approach to the problem in Bosnia?

Mr. Hurd: First, the Sarajevo airlift continues in full flight and at full intensity whenever it safely can and is extremely important, although most of the supplies reaching the area come from Belgrade by road through Serb areas. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, about total finance, we are in close touch with Mrs. Ogata. Our total contribution so far has been £51 million. The difficulty is not so much lack of resources as lack of access, which leads to the hon. Gentleman's third point.
In last Friday's discussions, I was anxious to avoid politicians in Brussels saying that, as from Friday afternoon, such and such a road is open and safe, when within 12 hours that could be contradicted. Rhetoric has been the enemy in this problem all the way through. What the United Nations needs is more troops. I hope that it may not be long before there are, for example, Malaysian troops in UNPROFOR, which would enable troops now in Bihac, for example, to be redeployed along the access roads. We are constantly urging and working for that. We are doing our bit in central Bosnia—the right hon. Gentleman was right about that—with the techniques at which our troops are good. The idea that we could get more aid through by using armed force is contradicted—

Dr. John Cunningham: I did not say that.

Mr. Hurd: No, but it is widely suggested—and it is contradicted by all the experts and evidence on the ground. We must work with the resources that we have and try to increase those resources, whether they are United Nations soldiers or money for the agencies. We are doing both.

Mr. Cash: In his discussions with Community partners who are members of the Christian Democratic party, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to repudiate any notion of majority voting in foreign policy matters, as laid down in the Athens declaration—the basic programme of the European People's party? Conservative Members will then be in no doubt that our party will have nothing to do with majority voting in relation to foreign policy, and specifically with regard to any actions connected with Bosnia, in line with the guidelines prescribed recently by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Hurd: The position is perfectly clear in the Maastricht treaty. My hon. Friend, and other Conservative Members, may have contested the wisdom of the treaty, but he can now rely on its provisions in this regard with complete confidence.

Mr. Mandelson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the development of common European foreign policies requires the development of much greater public understanding of, and support for, those policies, not least


among young people? Is it not a backward move for the Foreign Office to propose cutting off its funding and support for a national organisation that is committed to those aims—the British Youth Council, with which, like the Secretary of State for Employment, I have been associated in the past? Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the proposal, and stop it being implemented?

Mr. Hurd: The British Youth Council has done, and continues to do, admirable work. Given all the pressures on my budget, however, I must consider whether the Foreign Office should continue to support it, and how it ranks in relation to the other demands on my resources—scholarships, the British Council and the BBC world service, for instance. I have concluded that I cannot continue to support the British Youth Council with Foreign Office funds.

Eastern Europe

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EC Commissioners and the Governments of the other member states about trade with and aid to the former communist countries of Europe.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Along with other Ministers, I discuss the issue regularly with other Community member states.
EC support, through the removal of trade barriers and through carefully targeted technical assistance, is vital to restore economic growth in those countries, and to consolidate their economic and political reforms.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the aid programmes for former communist countries in eastern Europe are very welcome, they are no substitute for free trade? What those countries really want is the removal of tariff and non-tariff restrictions from their goods so that they can access the markets of the European Community. Is not that the only way they will be able to rebuild their economies?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Trade is far superior to aid as an instrument to help social and political reforms in those countries. That is why the British Governments have been at the forefront of the calls for trade liberalisation.
We know that those newly free countries stand to gain most from being able to produce and sell their goods to the European Community. In exchange, that will provide additional opportunities for British and Community exporters.

Mr. Macdonald: One of the former communist countries most in need of aid is Bosnia. Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary what he meant when he said that the airlift to Sarajevo was at full stretch? In the past month, only half the minimum survival ration that the United Nations has designated for the people of Sarajevo has been delivered. It is supposed to be 600gm of food per person per day, but has amounted to only 300gm.
The Berlin airlift lasted for fewer days but delivered 2 million tonnes of aid. The Sarajevo airlift has delivered only 60,000 tonnes. Is it not clear that much more can be done by means of the airlift, without risk to soldiers on land

convoys, to deliver the minimum amount of aid that the United Nations has said is necessary for the people of Sarajevo?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The aid effort to the former Yugoslavia is fully stretched, taking into account the safety and danger constraints upon us, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. We are always seeking opportunities to improve the flow of aid and its security. The record of this country in financial terms is extremely good, because in overall terms we have contributed some £150 million to the former Yugoslavia, both through the European Community and through bilateral aid. Our record bears comparison with that of any of our allies.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Have my hon. Friend and his Department made any assessment of the impact of the transfer of manufacturing capacity from the United Kingdom and other European Community countries to eastern European countries? What will be the impact of that on jobs in the EC countries, including our own?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend perhaps regards free trade primarily as a threat. I regard it as an opportunity to build up the stability and prosperity of those countries, and to provide new markets for British exports. I remind my hon. Friend that the European Community currently has a large balance of payments surplus with those countries.

Ms Quin: Given the importance of trade, has the Minister studied the latest trade figures issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which show, sadly, that the United Kingdom has fallen a long way behind not only Germany but Italy and France in the volume of trade that we conduct with the countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, particularly in exports? What will the Government do to ensure that the situation is treated with the urgency that it deserves, and that our trading relations with those countries are as close and as beneficial as possible in future?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Labour Front Bench and I hope that she will remain there for a long time. Our export performance to central and eastern Europe must, indeed, be improved; that is why we believe in lowering trade barriers and liberalising trade. I am pleased to have the hon. Lady's support for that policy.

Japan

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Japan.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our relations with Japan are excellent. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Japan from 18 to 21 September, where he held wide-ranging talks with Prime Minister Hosokawa and other Ministers soon after they took office. He and the delegation of senior British business men who accompanied him, confirmed our positive approach to our trading relationship with Japan and stressed the continuing welcome for Japanese manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that continued inward investment from Japan is essential, particularly in areas such as the west midlands, and that it is enhanced by retaining and improving our existing diplomatic relations with Japan? Does he also agree that the Foreign Office has a vital role to play in enhancing and improving inward investment opportunities?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes. The British share of Japanese investment in the European Community during the financial year 1992–93 was more than 44 per cent. of the total. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry work very closely with the West Midlands development agency, both here and in Tokyo, to promote Japanese inward investment in the region. An inward investment mission from Japan, sponsored by the Invest in Britain Bureau, has visited the west midlands during the past fortnight. I hope that those investors will smile on Bromsgrove, in whose interests my hon. Friend is such a doughty fighter.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the inward investment from Japan only possible because of its enormous manufacturing success and the balance of payments surpluses that Japan enjoys with most other major manufacturing countries throughout the world? Will the Minister discuss with the Japanese how they achieve that, while we apparently cannot achieve it and are subordinated to the other countries of the Common Market so as to provide a large internal market for our manufacturing industry? Why should we be beholden to the Common Market when the example of Japan demonstrates that that is not necessary?

Mr. Goodlad: The House will be unsurprised to learn that the hon. Gentleman is wrong as usual. Exports from this country to Japan in the first part of this year were up by nearly 19 per cent. compared with last year's results,

despite depressed levels of demand in Japan due to its current economic difficulties. The whole House, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, will want to rejoice in that.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cultural and political links with Japan have never been stronger, and nor have our trade links? Does he agree that Japan has consistently placed more than 40 per cent. of its investment in the European union in the United Kingdom —and an even higher proportion in the United Kingdom financial sector? In his forthcoming visit to Japan, however, will my right hon. Friend urge on that country the fact that there are a number of invisible barriers to trade which, if removed or reduced, would enable us to improve our exports to the Japanese and thus help them to reduce their trade surplus?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes, indeed. As my hon. Friend knows —in his present capacity he makes a great contribution to our relations with Japan and is very knowledgeable about it—Japan has removed most barriers to trade in recent years, although there are still problems in some areas. The Prime Minister raised those matters during his recent visit and I shall do the same in my forthcoming one.
The Prime Minister of Japan described my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit as the beginning of a new era for British-Japanese relations, which he saw as the linchpin of Japan's relations with Europe. We will continue to seek to enhance that relationship and not, as some others do, to undermine it.

Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. We take points of order after statements.

Adoption (White Paper)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the Government's plans for the amendment of adoption law in England and Wales and for the development of adoption policy and practice. These plans are set out in a White Paper which I am publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon after the forthcoming Session as parliamentary time permits.
The White Paper builds on the recommendations of an interdepartmental working group, whose report was published last year, and subsequent consultation. We have also been influenced by the substantial body of research on adoption, a summary of which, prepared by my Department's social services inspectorate, has been placed in the Library of the House.
Adoption is about creating a loving and stable family upbringing which best provides for the child. The basic framework for adopting children remains sound. Given their fundamental importance to the life of the child, all adoptions will continue to be authorised by the courts, advised as appropriate by social services authorities or adoption agencies, which are in turn advised by adoption panels.
However, there is a need to bring the legislation up to date. The law in this field was last changed in 1975. Adoption today is very different from 20 years ago. The number of adoptions has more than halved in the intervening period. Fewer babies and toddlers are adopted, and a greater proportion of adoptions are of older children. Half of all adoptions today arise as a result of remarriage, when a step-parent wishes to establish a legal relationship with the natural child of his or her spouse. More people are interested in adopting children from abroad. The White Paper has been written against this background. It sets out a modern framework for adoption to take account of the way people live now.
The first duty in adoption must be to the child. There is a need to strengthen the law to take this fact more explicitly into account. Specifically, we propose to give children aged 10 or more the right to participate in their own adoption proceedings. They will have to agree before an adoption order can be made.
Where the birth parents oppose adoption, we propose a new and more explicit legal test for the courts. They must be positively satisfied that adoption offers significantly better prospects for the child than less permanent alternatives.
We shall reinforce the general preference of authorities and agencies for recommending married couples as adoptive parents. Above all, potential adoptive parents should be judged on the care, affection and stability they can offer the child.
There should be no place for ideology in adoption. We want common-sense judgments, not stereotyping. There are, for example, no good grounds for refusing on principle to contemplate trans-racial adoptions or adoption by parents over a prescribed age. Those basic points will be reinforced in guidance.
We intend new safeguards against the unacceptable handling of adoption cases. The White Paper describes a new complaints procedure for any party to an adoption case who is seriously dissatisfied.
Adoption is a service for children, not adults. Those offering to adopt, however, are entitled to fair, courteous and sensitive treatment. Statutory adoption agencies will remain responsible for deciding who to recommend as adoptive parents, but parents applying to adopt will have new opportunities for appeal and reassessment.
We also intend to consult on strengthening adoption panels to make them more broadly based. They will include more independent members and, wherever possible, one or more successful adoptive parent.
Where a step-parent adopts, we propose to end the anomaly that the birth parent in the new marriage is obliged to adopt his or her own child. Step-parents will still be able to adopt, but we intend to offer them and their spouses a new and simpler way of sharing legal responsibility for the child. They will be able to make and register with the courts a parental responsibility agreement. That will give them a joint responsibility for the child in the new marriage without severing the child's relationship with his other natural parent. The decision to enter such an agreement will not require professional assessment; it will be for families alone to decide.
We also propose a new guardianship order enabling other long-term carers and relatives, including foster parents, to define a more permanent legal relationship with children for whom they care. That would enable them to have their responsibility for the child's welfare recognised in law without going as far as full adoption.
Recent years have seen a steady growth in inter-country adoptions. That reflects both international events and the fact that, while the number of children available for domestic adoption has declined, the number of people wishing to adopt has not.
Those who want to adopt children from abroad should have their wishes respected. In all suitable cases, such adoptions should be facilitated. However, the procedures must be proper. They must prevent abuse. We must aim for the same high level of protection and benefits for the child as in domestic adoptions.
Earlier this year, the Government were represented in the preparation of a new Hague convention on inter-country adoption. Adoptions between countries which ratify the convention should become much simpler than at present without losing any safeguards.
In particular, there will be no need to duplicate adoption orders in both countries involved. Immigration clearance for the child will become an integral part of the adoption process. The United Kingdom will ratify the convention once Parliament has enacted the necessary legislation.
The Government believe that adoption continues to play a valuable part in our society. This is a view which is no doubt shared by the vast majority of the 750,000 people in Britain whom we estimate are adopted. Adoption provides children with a chance of a secure and loving unpbringing. The White Paper will strengthen a system which already has much to its credit. It is a White Paper for children, and a White Paper for families. I commend it to the House.

Mr. David Blunkett: First, I would like to thank the Secretary of State and her officials for the courtesy they


have shown me in ensuring that I could see the White Paper and the documents in time to be able to read them this afternoon.
Many issues of ideology divide the House, but the interests and the needs of children are not one of them. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the work on this White Paper and to adoptive and foster parents up and down the country.
Despite the briefing that took place with some newspapers and media outlets, the White Paper is sensible and welcome. Gone is the cash-register mentality of charging for adoption—although I ask the Secretary of State to examine the regulations on charging for inter-country adoption. Gone is the abuse of social workers. Instead, there is a welcome commitment to openness and to the development of what is described as a complaints procedure, although it might more accurately be described as a review.
Will the Secretary of State reflect, with us, on why she chose to pick out magistrates courts committees for nominating additional independent members of adoption panels, when we all agree that there should be a non-legalistic approach to ensuring the best possible consideration of adoptive parents and the needs of the children concerned?
Had we been involved, we might have been able to come up with a better title for the White Paper—perhaps the simple title, "Putting Children First". Does the right hon. Lady accept that we all have an interest in putting behind us any nonsense about political correctness and any prejudice in the application of the clear principle of ensuring that the interests of the child are at the forefront of our thinking? Does she agree that finding the right parents, or parent, for the right child is all that matters?
We could draw on the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench. She has made an admirable parent over many years. What matters is not age, status, weight, height or anything else—in saying that I imply no reflection on my hon. Friend, of course, Madam Speaker—but solely the needs of the child. What matters is not the isms or other factors that have been brought to public attention, but simply the right person to do the right job.
Will the Secretary of State say how, in approaching the International Year of the Family, we might join together in introducing measures that support, succour and encourage the family and stability, rather than undermining it? That could involve offering prospective adoptive parents counselling and support, including advice on infertility, so that they could also make choices within the NHS.
In a spirit of consensus—and without having a heart attack—will the Secretary of State accept my congratulations on the part that she has played in preparing the Hague convention, which is an important step towards protecting children and their parents throughout the world? Will she, with our European partners, seek to take clear and decisive steps to establish uniformity and proper standards right across the European Community for the entry of children, so that we can ensure that, whether they are from the war-torn regions of the world or from areas where standards are not so high, children are not abused by abduction and sale? Will she join other European member states in preventing the sale of children, which has recently been drawn to public attention in Greece, where four people were arrested in Athens last week for the abduction and sale of babies?
Will the Secretary of State join us in seeking to strengthen and widen the White Paper by reconsidering the training and retraining provided? Instead of narrowing and shortening training procedures, we could broaden them to take into account the proposed new powers and responsibilities.
May every child be wanted, may every child be protected and may every child be cared for. May we in the House, for once in our lives, avoid the simple adversarial approach to finding solutions and all play our part in securing the well-being of children for the future.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive and positive approach to the White Paper. I share his sentiment that the well-being and welfare of children should unite political parties. There are difficult and complex issues to be addressed, but there is no reason for that to divide us.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. He asked about the independent members of the adoption panels; the magistrates committee was simply given as an example of one such group that might wish to nominate to those panels. We particularly wish to have those who have been successful adoptive parents themselves. It is an area where, with the best will in the world, theory and ideology can easily overtake common sense and practical judgments. We wish, wherever possible, to ensure that those practical principles are well founded throughout the adoption process.
The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to all adoptive and foster parents in this country. We have a tradition of placing in families children with enormous individual needs. Many of the hard-to-place children in this country have a home with a family when, elsewhere, they would be confined to an institution. It is important that we build on that tradition of good practice.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the International Year of the Family. We are all aware that many families are struggling, for a great range of reasons. The turbulence and change of modern society means that many families find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Finding ways of supporting parents and family formation in communities is something that we should all share.
The hon. Gentleman referred to other countries where child, care practices do not meet the standards that we can take for granted in this country. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which we were able to ratify, is an important step forward and, shortly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who has special responsibility for children, will be reporting on our progress in the UN convention. That makes it clear that there should be no two-tier service. We should not apply a standard for the adoption of children from overseas that is lower than the high standard that we apply at home.
The hon. Gentleman referred to training. Training, support and counselling are important in adoption, but so is the training of social workers generally. We recently appointed Geoffrey Greenwood to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. He will, I believe, ensure that there is greater public confidence in the work of social workers who are, after all, entrusted with making decisions of great significance.
The White Paper is about creating stable families. Many of the children for adoption today come from broken homes. Adoption offers them a brighter future. The White


Paper makes it clear that their interests are best served by placing them with people, usually married couples, who can provide a secure and caring upbringing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps we might now have brisk questions and brisk answers, please.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does she agree that the White Paper strikes a blow for common-sense judgment in adoption? Does she also agree that the adoption panels are particularly important in reinforcing that message? Is she able to give the House further details about her proposals to strengthen the panels?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. It is a balance between professional judgment and the common-sense view. Adoption is about finding the best possible outcome for an individual child. It is no good a child hanging around in limbo while some theoretically politically correct parent appears over the horizon. It is better to place a child with the best available family in the circumstances. I very much hope that the additions to the adoption panels will reinforce that common sense approach. As I have said, we hope that among those who will join adoption panels are those who have been successful adoptive parents. All parents—both natural and adoptive—will know that sometimes practice and theory do not match perfectly.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale): I welcome the publication of the White Paper, which we hope will get rid of some of the ridiculous cases of which we have heard during the past few months, when political correctness has been taken into account. As the assessment must be open and fair, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that social workers will receive additional training where necessary? Will she ensure that successful adoptive parents will get back-up and support after the adoption, in same way that they do before the adoption? Will the natural parent have to give permission before a step-parent can adopt, as is the case at present?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady asked about training, and I have commented on the improvements that we wish to see in social work training generally. There are many more qualified social workers than there were previously, but it is important that we continue to modernise and update the training that is available.
The hon. Lady is right about the importance of back-up and support, and it is important that it is provided in the early years. That is part of the work of counselling before an adoption has been entered into. Some parents resent the intrusive nature of that assessment. It is my view that adoption is an irrevocable decision, and it is important that every step is taken to be as sure as possible that there will be a positive outcome.
The adoption by a step-parent will need the agreement of the natural parent. However, we are introducing the parental responsibility agreement, which is a voluntary agreement which can be dealt with by a court without the complexity of a full adoption.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on injecting a strong

dose of common sense into the social worker's world, which is too often full of absurd ideologies and pettifogging bureaucracies? Does she agree that would-be parents should be helped and guided, rather than hindered and obstructed? Will she consider setting up a specialist overseas adoption agency, such as exists in Scandinavia, to help and guide couples who wish to adopt from abroad in what is a complex area?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend, who, of all hon. Members, works hard to ensure that there is a more positive approach to inter-country adoption. We have already established a helpline for those who are interested in inter-country adoption, which has received about 1,000 calls in the first year. In due course, there may well be scope for a specialist agency involved in inter-country adoption. I had hoped that one of the existing voluntary agencies might take up the task, but, so far, the call has not been successful.

Mr. Terry Davis: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important, in the interests of the child and of the adopting parents, that total confidentiality is given to the names and addresses of parents? How can the Secretary of State explain her decision to allow staff at the University of Birmingham to have access to such information without the permission of the mothers involved?

Mrs. Bottomley: I will look into that matter, and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the wonderful work that is done by a great number of foster parents? Will she consider the harrowing cases where a foster parent has looked after a child for many years, but then the natural mother has come and claimed the child? Does the White Paper address that subject?

Mrs. Bottomley: It very much addresses the wise point that has been made by my hon. Friend. Foster parents provide magnificent services for children. There has been a dramatic fall in the number of children in institutions and in care in recent years. We provide the extra measure of a guardianship order which could be taken out by a foster parent so that a child could not then be removed by the mother without the matter returning to the court for its decision.

Ms Ann Coffey: I was pleased to see a section in the White Paper on contact services after adoption. As the Secretary of State is aware, that is a very important area, given the complexity of adoption. However, has she taken account of the resource implications, because a great deal of staff time will be involved? When the measure is on the statute book, will the Secretary of State consider the resource implications and ensure that the implementation of this very good legislation is not prevented because the resources are scarce?

Mrs. Bottomley: Year on year, we have discussions with social services departments about their additional responsibilities and the resource implications of those responsibilities. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been a dramatic increase in resources for social services


departments over the past three years. That has involved a 53 per cent. increase over the 1991 level and a 35 per cent. increase in real terms.
Be that as it may and to return to the hon. Lady's point, contact is an extremely sensitive point. However, now that so many more of the children involved are older and, therefore, have a living experience of their lives before adoption, many take the view that retaining some form of contact is appropriate for the most successful outcome. However, that should not be coercive. It requires careful consideration and, as the hon. Lady rightly said, detailed counselling and thought before decisions are made.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a truly excellent statement. With regard to the White Paper, what would be the position in respect of a homosexual couple who applied for adoption? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever sympathy one might feel for couples in that position, the pattern of normality of normal family life would be so lacking that it simply could not be appropriate for such an adoption to take place?

Mrs. Bottomley: Homosexual couples cannot adopt now and there is no intention that they should be able to. As the White Paper makes clear, there must be a strong presumption in favour of adoption by a married couple. That is the position in the White Paper and it is the position which we are setting out for the future.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is quite inappropriate, and makes it extremely difficult for couples adopting a baby or small child, that there is no statutory right to maternity allowance or pay? A couple in that situation in my constituency had to ask, in the absence of statutory provision, whether their employer would be willing to provide time off work, and they were summarily dismissed. That adoptive couple began adopting with half the income that they were expecting. Having considered the matter, will the right hon. Lady urge the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Employment Secretary to take steps to remedy that situation for adoptive parents?

Mrs. Bottomley: Very few babies are now adopted at the stage when they would be eligible for maternity allowance. However, I will reflect on the hon. Lady's point.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that so long as she says that, usually, married couples will adopt children, there will be a fear that homosexual couples of either sex might adopt children—

Mr. David Hinchliffe: This is irrelevant.

Mr. Greenway: I am concerned about children. Opposition Members should also be concerned about them. It is the children who matter.
Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that when a child is removed for adopting purposes from a mother or father or just a mother, those people will receive proper counselling? Has my right hon. Friend ever had a mother in her surgery who said, "Give me back my baby"?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend reinforces the concern felt by all Conservative Members about the fact that children need a mother and father. They need a stable

family unit. We believe that there must be a strong presumption in favour of adoption by married couples. However, at the same time, there are circumstances in which an individual parent has provided most remarkable care for a child. For example, a widowed stepfather can adopt. My hon. Friend will be aware of women who have provided the most remarkable and dedicated care for a child, often with great needs, in a most impressive way. It would be quite wrong to prohibit that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) conveys the sensitivity of so many such matters and, of course, for the mother in the case that he describes, careful counselling and continuing support are high priorities.

Mr. John Gunnell: As I have an adopted sister and an adopted son and was a member of an adoption panel for some years, I welcome the Secretary of State's White Paper, especially its priorities for providing children with a stable home background. What number of members does she envisage for the new adoption panels and what quorum would be required, as I have found that that matters? I welcome her latest statement that adoption panels will not have to be rigid. I agree that, in the majority of cases, children go to homes of married couples, but adoption panels also deal with children in difficult circumstances who need special kinds of care. Occasionally, as she says, the care of one parent can be what is needed. Will she ensure that rigidity does not occur?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We will be consulting on the numbers of members and the most appropriate way in which to reinforce the adoption panels. The hon. Gentleman may comment on that consultation. The most appropriate approach to adoption, which I am sure is shared by the hon. Gentleman, is that it is about finding families for children and not necessarily providing children for childless couples. As long as we remember that it is the needs of the child for whom we must find the best possible home that should dictate decisions, children will benefit.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend on her extremely sensible statement. Will she confirm that parents who wish to adopt, but may encounter considerations of political correctness in local authorities, will have alternatives open to them?

Mrs. Bottomley: I will. My hon. Friend is right; a disconcerting number of parents still do not believe that they have had a fair hearing or handling of their case by the social services department of their local authority. I regret that, but it is the case. That is why we shall be strengthening the complaints procedure on the basis set out in the Children Act 1989 so that it will be possible for parents who feel that they have not been fairly treated not only to complain but to require an assessment by another authority or one of the 39 voluntary adoption agencies.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I welcome the White Paper and especially the proposal to give children over a certain age the right to participate in their own adoption procedures. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether she intends that to apply to children over the age of 12, or 10 as she said in her statement?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady because my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who leads on that subject, has been urging me to find an opportunity to correct my misstatement earlier. Children over 12—not 10—will be eligible. I apologise for misleading the House.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Having made it clear that being fat, 40 and fairly well-off will no longer be a handicap in qualifying to adopt, will my right hon. Friend consider the case of couples—there are several in my constituency—who successfully adopted one child, waited a couple of years to allow that child to settle and when they applied to adopt a second child were told that they could not because they had become too old? Will she also consider that such couples often find an available child in another district, only to be told that that district will only allow people who live in its own geographical area to adopt children, which produces a lot of unhappiness among couples who have proved themselves worthy to be good parents?

Mrs. Bottomley: Ageism is one issue about which many people feel extremely strongly. Very often, older parents provide an excellent home for children and are perhaps wiser and calmer at the same time. Clearly, those making the assessment will want to be satisfied that there is a good prospect that the parents will be able to see the child through into early adulthood. That is quite different from the somewhat rigid, overbearing approach that seems to have been taken in some cases. My hon. Friend's point on finding a sibling for an adopted child is precisely the same as mine—it can only strengthen the existing placement and provide a very good home for another child.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not the background to this matter the fact that, under the Conservative Government, children have been under attack more than at any other time, with cuts in education, housing and the national health service? Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), will she ensure that maternity benefits for adopted babies are provided? So few are involved that it will not be a large sum of money, and children are children whether they are adopted or born into a family.
The Secretary of State has mentioned, for example, an increase in local authority services. She talked about introducing a new complaints procedure for authorities and voluntary agencies. Will she finance it? Does she not realise that local authorities are strapped for cash? The large number of new services that are imposed on local authorities should be adequately financed. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance? Children are involved.

Mrs. Bottomley: There has been a dramatic increase in resources for social services, anyway. The White Paper spells out what good practice is. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to advance that argument, I am not aware that we have reduced funding for social service departments. The number of adoptions has fallen dramatically from about 25,000 to about 7,000 a year, and there is no suggestion that social services departments should receive fewer resources in that context.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, he cannot have been awake over the past few years. Child

immunisation has gone through the ceiling—a dramatic increase—compared with standards that were delivered when his party was in government. Far more children now go on to university, and their education is very much better. There are far fewer children in care. There has also been a substantial increase in resources paid to low-income families. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper and thinks of all the practical benefits that have been made available for children over the past 14 years.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Gyles Brandreth. [Interruption.] You are Mr. Gyles Brandreth?

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker. I am glad that we both recognise that.
As I come from Chester, where one of my distinguished predecessors, Sir Basil Nield, pioneered the Adoption Act 1950, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly the emphasis on common sense and the abandonment of sexism, ageism, racism and so on. Does she agree that the best way of ensuring common sense on adoption panels is to have adoptive parents on them? Did I understand her to say that that would be a requirement or just desirable? What can she do to ensure that adoptive parents are regularly on adoption panels?

Mrs. Bottomley: If I have the name right, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for his contribution, because he has it precisely right. We intend that successful adoptive parents should join adoption panels. It is part of the citizens charter approach that the delivery of services should not be patronising and that it should work with people most closely involved so that we can learn from the experience of those who use the services as we provide them for others.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sensible and humane proposals which cannot be brought into force soon enough for the many people who are currently experiencing problems with adoption. Our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will know of a case in my constituency in which proposals in the White Paper would have been of great assistance. Is there any way in which the proposals or some of the proposals can be put into force sooner, perhaps by regulation or by common agreement and influence, so that they could assist people who are currently suffering problems?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is well aware of my hon. Friend's constituency case. It may be that some parts of the White Paper can be introduced earlier by means of good practice and guidance. But these are complex and sensitive matters and I believe that the House and others will want to consider carefully the proposals outlined in the White Paper before we move to final and firm legislation.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, but will she clarify the streamlined immigration proposals that are in the White Paper?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. At present, those involved in inter-country adoption often have to go through the procedures both in this country and in the country from which the child is arriving. Similarly, they have to go through immigration procedures from scratch. As we have signed the Hague convention, we will make sure also that


we have thoroughly streamlined those procedures, and will be considering the precise legislative route to achieve that in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving the degree of consensus that she has with the White Paper. Is it the Government's intention to ensure that the principle of the welfare of the child being paramount, which is enshrined in the Children Act 1989, is the same principle that will be brought into the legislation that she has said she will introduce?
What arrangements does my right hon. Friend intend to put before the House to ensure that children who are over the age of 12, who are now to be given the opportunity of participating in the process of adoption, will have their wishes properly considered and be given proper assistance to ensure that their views are put across with force?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable in those matters. The principle of the child's interest being paramount is the founding basis on which the White Paper was prepared, along with the need for the courts and social services to extend the consideration of the child's welfare into adulthood, which is a further step forward. Children over the age of 12 will be full party to the proceedings. They will be able to receive legal aid and have their views known.

Miss Joan Lestor: I have a strange sense of deja vu as I stand here today. I welcome the consultation paper, and I agree with the right hon. Lady that we are talking about services to children and the interests of children. They are central to any action that we take about our children.
The White Paper says that, as I think the right hon. Lady underlined, when we are considering adoption, we must be sure that it is better than any alternative that may be available to the child. In such a situation, there is no room for rigidity, and in many instances the White Paper and the right hon. Lady have made that clear. Every child is unique and, therefore, the needs of that child will be unique.
The White Paper states that children should stay with their birth families where that is possible. That applies also to children overseas and, before we bring children from overseas, we have a duty to ensure that their interests are met and not disregarded.
I welcome quick decisions about children. Too many of our children are left in limbo for a long time pending decisions. With due respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), we dealt with the question of tug-of-love children successfully in the 1989 Act, but the question of children in limbo still exists and that is a matter about which we need to be careful.
I do not want to sound a note of disagreement here, but I should like the right hon. Lady, in the process of consultation, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Although it is true that babies in this country are not being adopted, and, as I think the right hon. Lady implied, maternity leave therefore does not apply, babies from overseas are being adopted—a point that the right hon. Lady made.
In addition, if one adopts an older child in this country, it is just as important that it has weeks with its adoptive parent to be bonded, just as a baby needs bonding. The same facilities that apply to mothers who give birth

naturally should apply to all mothers and parents, irrespective of the origin of the child. That is very important.
I welcome the statement about open adoption where appropriate and applicable, so long as it does not jeopardise the development and growth of a new family. Open adoption is not easy. It is not easy for adoptive parents or natural parents to continue with contact. If natural parents are given a guarantee that it will not be a complete break, often they will agree to adoption and give the child a settled life. That is why I welcome that.
I welcome the move away from any rigidity on mixed ethnic adoption and fostering. That is important. As we proceed with this, I hope that there will be much greater encouragement for parents from ethnic minority groups to apply to adopt and foster. I do not think that we have done enough work in that direction. I certainly welcome the move. Many years ago, the right hon. Lady and I discussed the move away from any rigidity and the need to match a child. What is important is that the child must have a solid home—it cannot be left in limbo waiting for that to come along.
On the matter of rigidity, the principle of two parents is a sound one. But each child is unique and there will always be special circumstances in which the two-parent situation will not apply—and it should not be made to apply.
I welcome the suggestion about stepchildren and their adoption. As the House knows, we are moving into an era in which many stepchildren exist in families as a result of new marriages and relationships. It is important that we get that right. I hope that we will apply to the adoption of children from overseas exactly the same standards as those that we apply to the adoption of children in this country. In the past, I do not think that that has been done. I do not think that the vetting has been anything like as good as it should have been. I hope that we will examine the disclosures which, unfortunately, we constantly see about people here going abroad and buying children on the open market. That is disgraceful and it is something which we must examine.
I welcome the Hague convention. It will give us much more protection for children being adopted from overseas. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned the work of the Child Migrants Trust and the revelations—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. May I draw the attention of the hon. Lady to the fact that she is not winding up a major debate? She is making a few pithy comments on a statement which I understand she already welcomes very much. She has been speaking for four full minutes—[Interruption.] I time things carefully. I wonder whether she would conclude and allow the Secretary of State to make a quick response.

Miss Lestor: In conclusion, and as pithily as I can, I say that we should learn from the experiences of the Child Migrants Trust with regard to children from abroad as well as those here.
The White Paper, which I welcome—I hope that we will consult on it—will make us a much more child-friendly society with regard to the children that we have in our trust to place properly with future parents.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for being tolerant of the hon. Lady, because she speaks with special knowledge of these subjects.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right—the Child Migrants Trust has demonstrated how badly things go wrong when proper care is not taken. There can be no question of profiteering from trafficking in children. At the same time, we should be without prejudice. For children for whom there is no foreseeable prospect of their having a home in their country of origin, if there is a family that can provide them with a stable home in this country, we should not be prejudiced against such an arrangement.
I totally agree with the hon. Lady on the question of open adoption. In theory, it sounds splendid. In practice, I suspect that it is difficult to arrange. It is different for older children who know the previous family with whom they were placed, but I totally share the hon. Lady's view that it should be approached with great caution and care. I thank the hon. Lady for her overall welcome of the White Paper.

Occupational Pensions

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report of the Pension Law Review Committee.
Following the Maxwell pension scandal, I was determined to restore confidence in the security of pension schemes, so, in June last year, I set up the committee under Professor Goode to review the framework of law and regulation governing occupational pension schemes. The committee presented its report at the end of September. I decided to publish it immediately. It is immensely thorough, comprehensive, lucid and long. I have no doubt it will become the seminal work in the development of pension law for well into the next century. I want to place on record my gratitude to Professor Goode and every member of his committee.
The Government, like most of those involved in the pension business, are still considering the report in detail. Rather than wait until we have completed our deliberation, I thought it would be helpful to the House to make an early statement—to allow right hon. and hon. Members to express their immediate views on the issues raised by the report; to announce how we will handle the consideration of the report; and to indicate our preliminary overall response to it.
The report aims to modernise and improve the framework of law affecting occupational pension funds and to bring about a fair balance between the interests of scheme members, pensioners and employers. The Government entirely share these aims.
A fundamental question for the committee was whether trust law remained an appropriate basis for pension law or should be replaced by some form of corporate law. The committee concluded that trust law remains the best available framework for occupational pension schemes. The Government agree with this conclusion.
The committee was determined to fulfil its objective of ensuring greater security for occupational pensions without imposing burdens that would undermine the willingness of responsible employers to run pension schemes. Indeed, it has even suggested ways of simplifying some existing requirements. I welcome this approach.
Altogether the committee made 218 recommendations. I shall be seeking views on those recommendations and on other issues raised by the committee. I shall shortly issue some discussion papers as a basis for detailed exchanges with interested parties. There are five key areas on which we are particularly interested to seek views.
The first is solvency. The committee proposed that a statutory minimum solvency requirement, with certain specific exceptions, be applied to funded pension schemes. The proposal has already raised some questions about how solvency would be measured; how frequently a deficiency might occur, and how rapidly a deficiency could be restored. But it is clearly important to ensure that schemes are properly funded.
The second is surpluses. I deliberately drew up the committee's terms of reference wide enough to enable it to consider this issue. The committee concluded that
sweeping changes in the law governing surplus are not needed.


But it proposed some additional restrictions on payments to the employer and made other recommendations relating to surpluses.
The third is the management of schemes. The committee proposed a range of measures designed to improve the way in which schemes are managed and to enhance security of members' benefits. They include the appointment of member trustees; giving members more sharply focused information; and strengthening the role of professional advisers. Many schemes already involve their members and provide clear information to them. I want to encourage that and shall be considering whether we need to set minimum standards in this area for all schemes.
The fourth is compensation. The committee recommended a compensation scheme, funded by a post-event levy on pension schemes. The intention is to protect members and pensioners in the event of fraud, theft or the intentional misappropriation of assets. I recognise the case for some form of compensation scheme, as a long stop, behind a strengthened legal and regulatory framework. We shall be exploring the implications of this proposal too.
The fifth is regulation. The Government accept that the present arrangements for regulating pension funds need reform. The committee made a case for a quite new regulatory mechanism, with significantly wider powers than those currently held by the Occupational Pensions Board. I want to listen carefully to any comments on the detail of the committee's recommendations, not least to ensure that the burden on business is the minimum compatible with effective regulation.
The committee drew attention to a number of issues without making specific recommendations. In particular, it highlighted the complexity of the current arrangements for occupational schemes to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
It pointed out that many commentators had criticised those complexities, although it also noted that changes would not be straightforward. I shall want to discuss that issue with interested parties.
I and my colleagues in government shall give further consideration to the whole body of recommendations in the report in the light of the debate which Professor Goode has initiated and which our discussion papers will carry forward.
While we consider the committee's proposals, we must also press on with considering the implications for occupational pension schemes of judgments in the European Court of Justice. The court recently ruled, in the Ten Oever case, that the requirement of equal treatment applies only in respect of pensionable service since May 1990—the date of the Barber ruling. That judgment is excellent news. It confirms our interpretation of the court's ruling in the Barber case. Full retrospection would have cost British industry up to £50 billion to fund unforeseen liabilities.
We expect rulings on a number of related cases, notably the Coloroll case, for which the Government have provided financial support. In the meantime, I have asked my officials to begin discussion with interested parties some of the issues arising from the latest ruling, and from the Advocate General's opinion on Coloroll. We have recently issued a short, technical paper to inform those discussions.
Earlier last month I published the report by the working group on the alignment of tax and national insurance contributions. I set up the working group in May as part of our campaign to reduce the burdens on business. The

issues raised by the group's report have a bearing on our discussions with employers about the contracting out arrangements that I have mentioned. The report sets out a number of recommendations and some challenging options for aligning the two systems. Some of them would have significant implications for the benefit system and would require further consideration within Government.
I am attracted to the proposals for aligning the definition of earnings. I intend to consult the business community, and others concerned, next year about how that might be done.
Our policies to encourage private pension provision have been outstandingly successful. United Kingdom pension schemes own more than half of all pension fund assets in the European Community. We are determined to build on our success and to reinforce confidence in the security of occupational pension schemes. We aim to create a framework for occupational pensions that is secure, stable and fair, and to encourage people to make provision for their retirement.
The report of the Pension Law Review Committee provides a firm foundation for the debate that must take place before decisions are made.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the report, and I also wish to congratulate Professor Goode and his colleagues. Theirs is a formidable achievement. They have reduced a massive tangle of representations—I think that there were 1,669 submissions—to coherent order. The committee's work is, as I think everyone in the House recognises, vital, because confidence has been severely shaken by the Maxwell scandal. A new regulatory framework is essential. There must be adequate safeguards. Everything sensible and possible must be done to prevent another Maxwell-style disaster.
Much of the committee's work is self-evidently useful, but did the Minister note the comment in a leader in the Financial Times that the report is
far from a radical document"?
Is he perhaps surprised that those doubts are widely reflected, certainly in the press? I notice, for example, that The Sunday Times headline was:
Goode falls short of a revolution.
That in The Independent on Sunday was:
Error on the side of caution
and that in The Guardian was:
Goode is not good enough.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: What does the hon. Gentleman think?

Mr. Dewar: I will come to that in just a minute if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
Does the Minister accept that the report should be seen as a starting point, and not necessarily as a finished article?
At the heart of any discussions of pensions are the questions of ownership, the control of funds and choice for the employee. The report—it is a matter for future debate —does little to recognise the important principle that was laid down in the Barber judgment, that pensions are a form of deferred pay. Many are, and will be, disappointed that there has not been a fundamental shift of control in favour of scheme members. I welcome, however, the recommendations on a regulator. There is a strong case for that office, publicly funded and with the power to supervise and, where necessary, impose discipline. Recent history has underlined the shortcomings of self-regulatory organisations.
We also support the principle of a compensation scheme. I recognise why the Committee felt that it must be limited to
fraud, theft or other misappropriation",
but does the Minister accept that there will be further argument, particularly about the definition of those terms and the circumstances in which the compensation scheme will be brought into play? Was I right to understand from the Minister's statement that he clearly backs the principle and will move on it? I ask him that because the reference to a long-stop arrangement was somewhat grudging in tone, and it would be helpful if he would clear that up.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Maxwell pensioners, still living with uncertainty and fear, will regard the safeguards being built into the system as a frustrating case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted? The House will expect the Government to do everything possible to speed the recovery of the missing assets and cut a pathway through the complex litigation still taking place, which, to a layman, looks positively Dickensian.
The fears about the security of pension funds and the need for safeguards, sometimes in unexpected quarters, have been underlined recently by the Government's shabby conduct over the British Rail pension fund and the fears expressed by the chairman of the trustees of that fund about how the Secretary of State for Transport has conducted his business.
I give notice that, while welcoming the improvements, we shall want to look closely at many controversial areas. The treatment of surpluses and unilateral contribution holidays, and the protection of members' interests from arbitrary changes in the rules of the schemes, are important matters. Although the proposal that any payment to the employer from scheme funds will require the regulator's consent is welcome, we doubt whether it is enough in itself. Is there not a case for the Minister and the House looking beyond Goode, whose timid conclusion was that
sweeping changes in the law governing surpluses are not needed"?
Unlike the Minister, I quote that without great satisfaction.
We also want to look at the minimum solvency requirement. I recognise that there are many important arguments about definition and implementation and it is important that we get it right. However, I hope that the Minister agrees that it is an important discipline and should be considered seriously.
Does the Minister recognise the disappointment over the proposal that, in final salary schemes, only one third of the trustees will be appointed by active members? Although those recommendations represent a significant improvement on the present position, does he agree that they may be inadequate? Does that recommendation reach the standard of best practice which Goode said would be his guiding light?
May I ask a minor but interesting question? Has the Secretary of State looked at recommendation 80, which deals with the transfer of undertaking regulations? Will he take the advice of Professor Goode and his colleagues and support a test case in the European Court of Justice to establish how the regulations may affect pensions?
I was interested in what the Minister said—it was slightly unexpected but none the less welcome—about the Advocate General's opinion in the Coloroll case, the

implications of the Barber judgment, and the recent Ten Oever judgment. If the Minister now accepts—I gather that he does, rightly—that the decision is to rule out retrospection, which will save up to £50 billion, will he turn his mind to the introduction of limited price indexing, for which statutory authority already exists?
All hon. Members, irrespective of party, recognise that a long retirement on an un-indexed pension often ends in pain and distress. There is now a strong case for implementing paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to the Social Security Act 1990, and I hope that the Secretary of State can assure us that that will be on the agenda.
Finally, does the Minister accept the importance of maintaining momentum and pushing on to legislation at the earliest opportunity—certainly in the 1994–95 Session? I think that that is Government policy, but it would be helpful if he would underline and nail that down for the House's benefit today. Although adequate consultation must take place, will the Minister assure us that it will not delay progress or mask the urgent need for reform that is sufficiently radical to allow those who rely on occupational pensions to look forward to the future with confidence?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for welcoming the report and paying tribute to the committee. I agree that the report should be seen as a starting point for further debate; I think that Professor Goode would also accept that it is not a finished product that can be accepted without further detailed consideration.
The hon. Gentleman said that the report was far from radical. My criterion in judging it is not its degree of radicalness, but the degree of effectiveness with which it can achieve the objective on which we are all agreed—greater security for pension funds. That is the criterion that we will use in evaluating all the different proposals.
The hon. Gentleman also said that control should be shifted to pension fund members. The report contains recommendations to that effect, and we shall of course consider them; but I understand that the hon. Gentleman would like us to go further. He welcomes the committee's regulatory proposals. We shall examine them closely: we recognise the need for reform. We also accept that there is a case for compensation. I described it as a long stop because I believe that prevention is better than cure, and I envisage any compensatory procedures performing that role.
The British Rail pension fund issue was dealt with satisfactorily yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who made it clear that the pensioners would suffer no reduction in their rights, that the taxpayer would guarantee their price-indexed pensions and that they would be able to share in any distributable surplus in the future.
We shall, of course, look further—as the hon. Member for Garscadden implied that he would do—at pension fund holidays, and the other issues that he listed. We would particularly welcome the views of experts on the issue of solvency. We will certainly give serious consideration to the proposals of Professor Goode and the committee.
As for the timing of legislation, we consider it right to proceed with due speed, but thoroughly. We therefore want to consult, which will make legislation impossible this year —as the hon. Member for Garscadden implicitly recognised. The earliest possible date would be in the next parliamentary year, 1994–95; but, as the hon. Gentleman


knows, I can give no commitments until we know what other pressure for places is produced by the Queen's Speech.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's overall welcome for the proposals.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, had many of the regulatory proposals in the report been in place when Robert Maxwell was in charge of his pension funds, the problems that he caused could have been prevented? When carefully examining all Professor Goode's proposals, will my right hon. Friend consider a key issue that coud make him very popular with millions of women and men? I refer to the problem of early leavers and the surpluses that remain in pension funds.
Many employers are taking pension holidays as a result of surpluses created not by successful investment, but by those who have left pension funds early and are not receiving increases at the appropriate rate. Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the arrangements operating in Sweden and Germany, where early leavers are treated better? In that respect, the Goode report perhaps does not go far enough.
Overall, however, we all welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to ask Professor Goode to carry out the inquiry which has produced such an excellent report.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to the report.
When the report was published, Professor Goode was asked whether the measures that he proposed would have stopped the Maxwell fund scandal, and he said that he believed that it had probably created difficulties, hurdles and obstacles sufficient to have prevented that. However, he recognised—as we all have to recognise—that we can never be 100 per cent. certain of stopping crime. We have to ensure that there are enough early indicators, under a proper framework of regulation, to prevent, wherever possible, such offences from occurring. That will be the criterion that we will use to evaluate the proposals.

Mr. Don Foster: I also welcome Professor Goode's report. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I welcome the somewhat reluctant recognition by the Secretary of State of the need for some form of compensation scheme. Does the Secretary of State now acknowledge that the Government were wrong to exclude occupational pensions from the compensation arrangements under the Financial Services Act 1986, and the urgency of the need to right that wrong?
Does the Secretary of State further acknowledge that his statement will do nothing to provide additional comfort to Maxwell pensioners? Will he not take the opportunity to give that comfort to those pensioners by agreeing to underwrite the pensions of all those who have suffered at Maxwell's hands?

Mr. Lilley: I am delighted that the report has all-party support. As a basis for further consideration, that is very welcome.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I was reluctant to consider a compensation scheme. I repeat that the priority must be prevention. It is right that we should have a compensation scheme as a long stop, but it must be offered only in the last resort.
As for Maxwell pensioners, the report makes it clear that it is not envisaged that any compensation scheme

should be made retrospective. The Government believe that the right way to help Maxwell pensioners is to assist the trustees of the Maxwell pension funds to secure a return of assets. That would ensure that those funds can continue to pay pensioners their pensions, as we have enabled them to do so far.
We have supported Sir Peter Webster in his efforts to achieve a global settlement of all outstanding issues, which will be warmly welcomed by all pensioners. His efforts would not be helped if we were to introduce a retrospective compensation fund.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Maxwell pensioners, including those in my constituency, will welcome the Goode report as a basis for protection in the future? Does he further agree that revolution often leads to legal uncertainty, and that often the best approach, as recommended in the Goode report, is to build on existing trust laws and establish a structured statutory framework of rights and duties? That would lead to less bureaucracy, more effective regulation and more certainty than the opposite approach of revolutionary change and a wide-ranging corporate law approach.

Mr. Lilley: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the position of Maxwell pensioners in his own constituency, and he is right about both the attitude of those pensioners towards the Goode report and the lack of necessity to adopt a revolutionary approach for its own sake. We have to make sure that in future we have an effective system, which will prevent such events from recurring and make members of funds secure in the knowledge that their assets will be there to pay their pensions for decades to come. That is what we seek to achieve.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Secretary of State is aware that some of the best occupational schemes in Britain have very large employee representation—for example, ICI currently has a 50 per cent. employee representation. What is wrong with that? Why does he not support it?

Mr. Lilley: I have not taken a firm view on the recommendations in the Goode report about member trustees and employee representation. We will consider the proposals put forward and the responses that they elicit. I know that many good schemes have 50 per cent. Or more member trustees, but so did the Maxwell funds. That alone does not guarantee the security of the funds, but it is not a reason for not considering it. We will consider the appropriate level of representation and the circumstances in which it should take place. I want to be sure about whether we need a statutory obligation to ensure some level of best practice. That is one of the issues on which I would like people's views.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's positive and informative statement. There are not many hon. Members who do not have Maxwell pensioners and Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners in their constituencies. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some concern that legislation to deal with companies prepared to pillage their pension funds to bolster cash flow, or for other purposes, will not be introduced for more than 12 months? Is it not possible to introduce some interim legislation to prevent pensioners


from having their pensions placed in great jeopardy, as occurred with the Mirror Group Newspapers or Dunn and Company pension funds?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the report. I have considered whether we should move ahead speedily with interim legislation. I said to Professor Goode that, if in the course of his work he felt that he could make proposals to ensure greater security, which could be legislated on in advance of the final report, on an interim basis, I would respond positively to them. He did not think that that was the right approach, or that he could disentangle some aspects of his recommendations from others.
We have to ensure that what we do makes the system better and safer, and that we do not provide new opportunities and anomalies for some rogue to exploit, which might happen if we introduced ill-thought-out and hasty legislation.
As a result of the Maxwell fund scandal, everyone in the pension fund world is currently on red alert, and we have greater security within the existing framework than ever before. I want to put in place arrangements that will ensure that, when the Maxwell memory has dimmed with time, we will still have a safe system which will give early warning of any wrongdoing or areas which may need investigation.

Mr. Frank Field: May I add my thanks to Professor Goode and the Committee for their report? Is the Secretary of State aware that, although pension fund members own half of British industry, no member feels that he owns anything whatsoever? Will he give an undertaking that, when the Bill on pension law reform is brought forward, there will be provision in it for individual members to own their pension funds?

Mr. Lilley: I know that the hon. Member is keen on moving towards individual ownership of pension funds. Professor Goode and his committee indicated that individual ownership is a natural and inherent part of money purchase schemes, but is less so in final salary schemes. We have increased individuals' rights in respect of pensions, and have given them greater access to information and participation. We want to examine the report's recommendations to see how far forward we can carry that process.
It is a remarkable thing that individuals in this country, through their pension schemes, have such an immense ownership of wealth. It is good for them and the economy, and we want to make sure that that wealth is not only safe but is recognised as part of the rights that people have as a result of their savings during their working lives.

Mr. David Willetts: I welcome the report, because it shows how right my right hon. Friend was to establish the Pension Law Review Committee. I particularly welcome the recognition in my right hon. Friend's statement and the report that it is important that pensions are not over-regulated. As the Department of Social Security has now commenced its consultation exercise, I hope that it will not add extra regulations and new devices, but, if anything, will deregulate pensions further.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We must make sure that we do not impose such burdens on employers that they

cease to run pension funds—that would be to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Equally, we must provide security; we must not trade off security to achieve lower burdens on business. But we must find ways of achieving security that do not impose excessive burdens on business. That principle also guided the committee. I welcome that, and the fact that it tried to find ways in which existing regulatory burdens can be lightened in the process of any reforms that we may introduce in future.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Minister accept that, if he set a firm timetable for legislation, that would concentrate minds—not least in his Department—during the consultative process? Does he further accept that, for both public and industry, the need to put a regulator in place as soon as possible is urgent —unless the Government are to continue their sometimes casual, if not slapdash, approach to regulation in the public interest?

Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the minds of my officials are distinctly concentrated on making as rapid progress as is consistent with effective consultation and achieving sensible outcomes. It is my experience that employers and others involved in the pensions industry—we will want to involve them too in the consultative process—are also eager to make progress. We will have no difficulty on that front.
I have not laid out a firm programme for legislation, for the same reasons why no Secretary of State could do so: we cannot bind ourselves before we have made decisions about the competing pressures on future parliamentary time.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement in response to the Goode report. I ask him to bear in mind that the average occupational or private pension is about £60 a week, which, compared with a Government pension, is very good. So in all our efforts, we must attempt not to kill but to cure. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear this in mind when he deals with the regulatory side.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The average pensioner in receipt of an occupational pension receives £60 or more a week on top of his or her basic state pension as a result of the savings that he has put aside during his working life. New pensioners typically receive more than £70 a week from their occupation pensions, and the amount is rising. We want it to rise more as more people make better provision during their working lives. We want to encourage that. Essential in that process is reinforcing the confidence that people have in the pension funds in which they invest.

Mr. Terry Rooney: During the consultation exercise, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the local government scheme, which includes more than 1 million contributors and several hundred thousand beneficiaries? It always requires legislation to update the benefits in the scheme, which is consequently some 10 years behind current pension provision elsewhere.

Mr. Lilley: I will certainly look at that, although I am almost certain that it is an aspect rather different from the matters that will be central to implementing the Goode recommendations and the ideas that they were based on —but I will certainly examine the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to reflect on the position of occupational pensions in the wider provision of pensions? Will he agree that they are a product in decline, as they restrict labour mobility and people have no control over their assets? Does he join me in wishing to encourage the rapid expansion of personal pensions that move with the individual and allow him some control over the assets in which he has invested?

Mr. Lilley: We need not have all one or all the other—all personal pensions or all final salary schemes. We have made it possible for people to have greater choice as between the two. We opened up personal pension schemes, since when about 5 million people have taken advantage of them. It was originally forecast that this would be at the expense of occupational pension schemes. In fact, the number of people with occupational pensions has risen at precisely the same time as 5 million more people have gained personal pensions.
We want to foster both types of scheme and we are keen not to make either less attractive to pensioners or employers.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of my constituents have been affected by the serious abuses in the Belling pension scheme? Can he take immediate action to ensure that directors cannot, as they did in this case, borrow large amounts from the pension fund? Will he also ensure that pension funds do not buy, at inflated prices, subsidiaries of the parent company—as also happened in the Belling pension scheme?

Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, regulations are now in force which limit the ability of pension schemes to invest in their own underlying parent companies, either by lending money to them or by buying shares or property that belong to them. The potential for that abuse has thus been severely restricted.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's measured response to this complex and sensitive matter. I feel certain that by approaching it thus we shall achieve what we want—maximum protection for pensioners without impairment of the way in which pension schemes and pension fund management operate.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that not least among the most sensitive areas that Goode examined was that of solvency ratios, which are essential to any compensation? Will he give particular attention to that?

Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend's points. We will give close consideration to the proposals on solvency and to the response that they have already elicited. It is important to get this right; it is equally important to ensure that schemes are properly funded.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: The Minister has more confidence in Goode's proposals than Goode himself has. Goode could not give the committee a guarantee that they would be foolproof. Although he said that scheme members can be members of the trustee board, and although he said that a pensions regulator will be appointed, Goode's recommendation was ultimately to give sole responsibility for these matters to employers. If

we are looking for a foolproof system of offering pensioners security, surely the first thing to do is to remove that power from employes.

Mr. Lilley: Professor Goode spelled out his intention when he said that he wanted to make a reality of the pension promise. We want to make sure that the promise inherent in membership of a pension fund is fulfilled—that its assets are there to ensure that it is fulfilled and properly funded, and that abuses do not occur. The professor said that nothing could be foolproof. That is a truism with which we would all agree. Our job is to try to exclude every conceivable opportunity for abuse and wrongdoing. That will be the criterion that we use when developing Professor Goode's ideas.

Dr. Liam Fox: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a deferral of any collection of state scheme premiums from all the Maxwell pension funds? Will not that amount to a £100 million interest-free loan to the Maxwell fund? Will it not be a genuinely practical way of helping Maxwell pensioners, many of whom live in the Paulton area of my constituency?

Mr. Lilley: We have already announced the deferral of collection of state scheme premiums, which in effect gives the Maxwell pension schemes an interest-free loan worth more than £100 million. That has been widely welcomed by those involved. It has meant that pensions have been enabled to continue to be paid when they might not otherwise have been. It has eased the problem and provided a longer period in which to achieve an overall settlement, which I hope Sir Peter Webster will be able to achieve.

Mr. Keith Bradley: We want to endorse the welcome on both sides of the House for the statement. We look forward to the discussion papers, because it has been plain from questions today that there is not total agreement on issues such as solvency, surpluses, management, ownership, control, the number of trustees and a compensation scheme. Although we welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he will support such a scheme, we shall look at it in greater detail when the proposals emerge, and we shall be pressing for the regulation of new funds when the legislation appears.
I recognise that any compensation scheme will not greatly benefit the Maxwell pensioners, but I press the right hon. Gentleman to use his good offices to ensure that litigation against companies holding Maxwell assets and asset chasing for the Maxwell pension scheme are pursued with all haste. Will he also ensure that all the money that is available from that source goes back to the Maxwell pensioners and is not swallowed up by legal or professional fees? I am certain that the Government will press that point strongly on behalf of Maxwell pensioners.
Secondly, the Secretary of State did not respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about limited index-linking of schemes in future. Will he make some further comment on that?
Finally, we will be pressing strongly for legislation to be brought forward at the earliest opportunity in the 1994–95 Session, and if there is anything we can do to help him press that case, we will be pleased to assist.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, which I am sure will carry a great deal of weight


with my right hon. Friend should I meet any opposition in these matters. I am also grateful to know that some Opposition time may be made available to help us.
We shall certainly continue to do all we can to ensure that the Maxwell pension fund trustees and others pursue as effectively and rapidly as possible a settlement, particularly within the possible global settlement which Sir Peter Webster is now seeking. The object of that is not only to ensure that the issue is resolved more rapidly than if it went to court, but we are saved funds being drained off in lawyers' fees so that the money instead goes back to the pensioners in greater measure. I know that that has the widespread support of the House.
As far as limited price indexation is concerned, we made it clear that we intended to resolve a complexity of issues which bear on the obligations of pension funds before we decide whether and, if so, when that obligation should be imposed on pension funds. It is right that those other issues should be satisfactorily resolved first.

Points of Order

5 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is uncannily ironic that my point of order should follow the exchanges that have just taken place, as it relates to what is intended to be the biggest pension robbery in British history, the robbery of the British Rail pension fund.
In the other place this afternoon, the Government have now suffered two defeats on the pension fund issue in the Railways Bill. The other place has confirmed the view taken by many Members in the House last night and by the chairman of the British Rail pension fund about the conduct of the Government in reneging on assurances that had been given, and in seeking to gain the powers of Ministers to make changes to the pension fund—

Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Wilson: The conduct of the Government in seeking to make those changes has been rejected by the Lords this afternoon in the same way as it was rejected by Opposition Members last night.
Can you use your good offices, Madam Speaker, to bring the Leader of the House to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the proposed conduct of business hereafter and, preferably, could there be talks to abandon the whole unwanted Railways Bill as the threat to railway pensioners arises only as a by-product of that dreadful Bill which has no support in the country?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it related to this matter?

Mr. Skinner: Yes. As the two pension proposals have been defeated by the votes of Members in another place, taking into account the composition of the House of Lords—the ratio of Members taking the Whip is about four Tories to one Labour—would it not seem credible to argue that, as the Government have a massive majority there and a majority here in the House of Commons, now that the Lords have defeated them twice, surely it makes sense that the Government should accept the decision that has been made, so that we can get on with business?

Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same point of order?

Ms Coffey: No.

Madam Speaker: Then I shall return to the hon. Lady when I have replied to the hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson).
I have had no official news as yet, but, as the House knows, we have a long parliamentary day and no doubt we will hear how to proceed in due course.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why has the Department of Trade and Industry document, "Clean Coal Technology: Options for the Future" not been placed before the House? It states:
Coal can continue to play a significant role well into the twenty-first century".


Surely that is a supreme hypocrisy on the day when Calverton colliery is closing and the coal industry has been decimated. Do the Government intend to make a statement on the matter? Is it right that the document should be issued to the press, but not placed in the Library of the House?

Madam Speaker: I have not had sight of the document and I cannot be certain whether it is the sort of document that is normally laid before the House until I have seen it. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not yet had any notice of any more statements which Ministers are about to make today.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Item 13 on the Order Paper is a proposal under statutory instrument to impose VAT on orange juice. I know that it is informal, unofficial and does not exist, but earlier this week we had our party Whips and there was no indication at that stage that the matter would be debated. There was a debate in a Statutory Instruments Committee earlier this week on the subject, but today is the first time that many hon. Members have been aware that the matter is coming before the House this evening.
I dare say that, if it is on the Order Paper, it must be an order, but it seems that there should be some other procedure whereby such important matters cannot suddenly be flung on the Table at the last minute. Hon. Members should have adequate warning that issues of such significance are about to be put before the House.
Can you, Madam Speaker, look into the background of this matter? If the procedures are not proper for matters of this significance, perhaps it would be possible for the Procedure Committee to look into them so that in future such matters do not come before the House with minimal notice at the last minute. Because you know so much more about these things than I do, Madam Speaker, may I ask whether we can debate the motion later this evening, or do we purely vote on it?

Madam Speaker: It is not a matter which can be debated later this evening. It has already been before the Statutory Instruments Committee in the normal way, but it is not on the Order Paper for debate this evening.

Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The matter is the subject of a dispute which is subject to appeal to the House of Lords. It would appear that this order is being rushed through while the matter is sub judice. Is it not a matter about which we should be concerned?

Madam Speaker: The sub judice rule does not apply to delegated legislation.

Ms Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 15 October a letter from the Secretary of State for Social Security was circulated to all right hon. and hon. Members which stated that it was not true that the Child Support Agency was concentrating primarily on those who were already paying some maintenance. However, I understand from reports in the press that the chief executive of the agency said exactly the opposite to the Select Committee on Social Security.
In view of the irreconcilable nature of these two statements, could you, Madam Speaker, use your good offices to ask the Minister to come to the House to reconcile them? I feel strongly that it is important for Members of the House to have accurate information, and we do rely on Ministers to give us that accurate information.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is aware that I have no authority to require a Minister to come before the House and make a statement. I am given notice when a Minister wishes to do so. Of course, as the hon. Lady may be aware, and if she is not I will be happy to give her some guidance if she would like to come and see me, there are various other methods by which she herself can raise these matters in the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

POLICE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the Police Act 1964 so as to permit all members of any police force to belong to a trade union, and to allow the Police Federation to affiliate to the Trades Union Congress: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]

VALUE ADDED TAX (DEMOCRATIC CONTROL)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to restore to Parliament the sole legislative power to impose, amend, or repeal value added tax to be charged in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR (No. 2)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 November, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

Football Matches (Violent and Disorderly Conduct)

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the prevention of violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches played outside England and Wales; to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989; and for connected purposes.
I am a lifelong supporter of West Ham United, and since June 1983 I have been a supporter of Basildon United. Both, in their respective leagues, are the finest teams in the country. Unfortunately, occasionally they meet teams that play a little better than they do—but of course, those matches are always played in unfortunate circumstances. My household was delighted by West Ham's performance on Monday night, when we beat Manchester City. The passwords in our house are, "Up, you irons," and, "I'm for ever blowing bubbles."
I am an east ender, and it is appropriate that I support West Ham United, because when England won the world cup three West Ham players—Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters—scored all the goals. Those people were an inspiration to other young players in their behaviour both on and off the field. In more recent times, Trevor Brooking has also been an admirable ambassador for the British game of football.
I decided to ask the leave of the House to introduce this Bill because of my anger at the scenes that we saw on our television screens and in the newspapers at the time of the England versus Holland match. My Bill has nothing to do with football supporters or spectators. The idiots to whom I refer are so thick that they cannot even wait for us to lose a match before they riot. They have no interest whatever in the game of football; they have simply latched on to our national game as an opportunity for what they see as "having a good laugh". Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the two are somehow related in the minds of the general public.
We are all deeply saddened that we are now out of the world cup, that our national sport is still at a low ebb, with some players being paid too much money in return for poor skills, and that we have no settled English team. Now is the ideal time for us to take action on disorderly conduct at football matches. Lord Justice Taylor's report on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster said that there was no single remedy for hooligan behaviour. Those disgraceful individuals should be dealt with seriously, because of the shame that they bring on our country, on themselves and on their families. I presume that those people all have parents who love them, but if I had a son who behaved in that way I would string him up, and if I employed one of them—I assume that they are in work—I should not be at all happy about his staying in my employment.
I pay a warm tribute to the way in which the British game has been cleaned up, thanks to firm, decisive action. We are an example to other countries, and many people and organisations should take the credit for that—the football unit of the national criminal intelligence service, the Football Association, with its England unit travel club rules, the all-party football group and its chairman, and so on. The two 1991 reports of the Home Affairs Committee on policing football hooliganism, and other Select

Committee reports, have made significant contributions. Media headlines on one day are soon forgotten, but the matter needs constant attention.
Hooliganism is certainly not confined to these islands. For instance, as we have seen on television today, it happens in Turkey. It is widespread throughout the world, so the thrust of any amending legislation should be reciprocal, and should take effect on a European basis. For my suggestions I am indebted for his support and guidance to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who wanted to be in the Chamber, but is at present doing an interview on the same subject for a television programme.
The passport scandal is an example of the complex difficulties of control. Some hooligans, instead of using their own passports, apply for British visitors passports under false names to avoid proper identification. The rules for issuing British visitors passports should be tightened to require a more rigorous examination of supporting documents. If fans using the FA travel club scheme had to present full British passports, their tickets and their club cards, that would help greatly.
I hope to ensure that some action is taken, building on our successes in this country so that Britain can lead the way. First, we should extend by statutory instrument or otherwise the powers under section 22 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Only three times have statutory instruments extended the powers under section 22(1). Surely it is time for an extension to other countries. Regrettably, only 25 restriction orders have been issued by the courts since 1990, and most have now expired. That matter needs attention.
Secondly, we should lead by positive example, through the 1985 European convention on spectator violence and misbehaviour at sports events, especially football matches. Twenty-four countries are involved and, in the light of experience, a standing committee of the convention should review the provisions under article 9 more frequently. Our treatment of alcohol, the use of closed-circuit television inside grounds and mobile cameras outside, effective football units co-operating with one another, and local legislation giving the police emergency powers, will all greatly improve the situation, and will help to distinguish between innocent people and obvious offenders. That must all be done on a common reciprocal basis. We cannot be happy when the police authorities in other countries appear so restrained in their use of prosecution, finding it easier to ship suspected offenders as quickly as possible back to their home countries.
We have a great tradition of fair play in this country. We have always been seen as good losers—perhaps not wanting quite enough to win. There may be something in that. However, in the long term, no game could survive in a civilised society with the sort of nonsense that we have seen perpetrated by the mindless hooligans who have travelled abroad in recent years.
I hope that the all-party football group will wish to review the present position and to report its conclusions to the Home Office and to the Minister responsible for sport, so that appropriate action can be taken by a standing committee of the European convention. We cannot and should not stand by and allow our national game to be brought into disrepute by mindless thugs. The Bill will make a significant contribution to that end.
Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. David Evans, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Jim Lester, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

FOOTBALL MATCHES (VIOLENT AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT)

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the prevention of violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches played outside England and Wales; to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [27th October 1992] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings of this Order.
2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;


(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.


7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has a long history all of its own. The original private Bill was introduced into another place five years ago this month. It was considered by a Select Committee of the other place for 13 days and received the usual Second and Third Readings. In this House it was debated for a total of twenty-five and a half hours. It was twice carried over into new parliamentary Sessions, and was finally considered for sixteen and a half hours in an all-night sitting in April 1991. It was considered for 27 sitting days by a Select Committee, including three days of evidence taken in Cardiff.
The present Bill was introduced two years ago tomorrow. Seldom can a Bill coming before the House for a Second Reading have been already so thoroughly debated and examined. This Bill has been debated even more thoroughly since. It was considered for 14 days by a Select Committee of this House, including three days in Cardiff. There were five sittings for the Standing Committee, lasting twelve and a half hours. Report and Third Reading lasted over 10 hours.
The two Bills together have had Second Reading after Second Reading and Committee day after Committee day of discussion. There are those who think it is challenging for a place in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the length of time its passage has taken.
The Bill has also been through another place, including 11 days before a Select Committee. It was not greatly amended there.
The time has come to bring consideration of this Bill to an end. The timetable motion provides for two more hours of discussion. In paragraph 2, the motion contains the usual provision for questions to be put at the end of the two-hour period.

Mr. Alun Michael: The Secretary of State is correct to talk about the long time

involved with this Bill. If he studies the history, he might agree that, if the Welsh Office had advised in the first place that it should be a hybrid Bill, as it is now, rather than a private Bill, a great deal of time and agony might have been saved for many of us.
The Secretary of State is talking about cutting the time allowed for these last amendments. Given that these are generally helpful and non-controversial amendments, it seems rather odd that he should be introducing a guillotine at this stage.

Mr. Redwood: If the amendments are non-controversial and helpful, it will not take more than two hours to deal with them in a sensible way.
It is decision time for the House, and decision time for Cardiff.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the unflagging energy that he has put into this project. He will be handling the remaining stages with his usual skill and great knowledge of the subject.
Everything about the barrage and the bay proposals has been extensively debated. This House has heard how the rising water table will be handled, how transport will be organised and how development should follow the project. The Bill is eagerly awaited by the construction industry and by many in Cardiff. Its final passage tonight represents the go-ahead for a large civil engineering project, a green light for the bay development, a landmark in the history of Cardiff. The development corporation will ensure that the city is once again linked to the bay properly, and that the old docks areas will again become commercial centres, bustling with a new kind of trade.
I want to see Cardiff reunited, with its waterfront thrusting ahead with new investments in its business district, and proud of its bay-led development. The bay development will help Cardiff to retain its critical role in the business of Wales. In five years' time, people will look across the bay from Penarth and wonder how Members in this House could have stood in the way of regeneration for so long.
A new maritime city for the next millennium, a symbol of all that is best in Welsh enterprise, architecture and environment, will be constructed. It will be a celebration of the best of Wales, a symbol that the best of Wales is world class. I urge the House not to stay the bulldozers longer. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Secretary of State has just given his Third Reading speech. He has issued a clarion call for getting on with the job and not standing in the way of the bulldozers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has correctly pointed out, the problem is that the Secretary of State has not explained what the timetable motion has to do with the content of his mini-speech.
After all, it has taken six years to get this far with the Bill and it is difficult to see why an hour or so either way will make very much difference. If a Bill has taken longer than world war 2 to get to this stage, a guillotine hardly seems appropriate. We are discussing Lords amendments, not the Third Reading.
The Secretary of State is right to point to the fact that the Bill has a long and tangled history—in fact, he omitted one part of it. It first entered their Lordships' House in November 1987, not November 1988, and was withdrawn.
Perhaps the lesson that we can learn from this Bill is that, if one does one's homework, any Bill, whatever the objections to it, will have a much cleaner and smoother passage through the House.
The homework was not done on this Bill, and its tangled history saw the two Under-Secretaries of State before the present incumbent—Ian Grist and Nicholas Bennett—lose their seats in the last general election. We may have the triple crown of Under-Secretaries of State, in that the present Minister may also lose his seat after his association with the Bill.
We are dealing with what might be called legislative coitus interruptus on a monumental scale. The Secretary of State has said that he does not believe that the Bill's sell-by date has been exceeded. However, the Bill was conceived in the boom conditions of November 1987 and, six years later, it is just reaching its final proceedings in the Hosue. If it ever was the answer to Cardiff's problems, is that still the case?
We object to the timetable motion, not only because we cannot see the point of a guillotine on Lords amendments, but because of the precedent of a guillotine on a hybrid Bill with this unique history. It is unprecedented to have a hybrid Bill that is six years old—if we include the three previous versions—and to have a guillotine on Lords amendments to a Bill that has been carried over not only from one House to another and one year to another but from one general election to another. That is the problem that we are facing in trying to find a way in which the Secretary of State can justify the timetable motion.
There is not a vast number of Lords amendments, but they do require unrestricted debate. The Government will be well aware from events in another place already tonight that, when they mess about with Lords amendments and guillotine them in this place, nasty accidents sometimes happen. It is much better to allow Parliament to have unfettered debate, because if it does not, Bills can become accident-prone.
The Bill was given a Second Reading two years ago, and when a Bill is given a Second Reading, the principle contained in it is established. A problem arises, as in this case, when a Bill is altered in the other place and this House has no opportunity to consider it in its proper form.
The House did not have that opportunity, because it was rushed into Second Reading before the groundwater studies had been completed. It is a generally accepted constitutional convention that, following Second Reading, the principle of the Bill cannot be opposed. That establishes the principle, and binds the hands of the National Rivers Authority and of the Countryside Council for Wales.
When the Bill is altered in another place, that constitutional principle is undermined, because it means that one is now looking at a package different from that considered at Second Reading. It is fair to say—I am sure that many of my hon. Friends and the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary would agree—that the changes which have been made in another place undoubtedly provide improved protection against potential damage.
However, we did not have a chance to consider the complete package properly on Second Reading. I am arguing for an unrestricted debate tonight, because a fundamental constitutional principle could be undermined. Following Second Reading—after which the principle of the Bill cannot be discussed—the House should have a

proper chance to discuss the consequences for farm and livestock and for individuals, as well what appears in the Bill.
The same applies to the rights of petitioners, which have been considerably abridged by the omission of a matter under new clause 22, which I may come to later in the debate. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. Obviously, the reason for that is his own tangled involvement with clause 22. He denied that the clause would re-hybridise the Bill when I directly put it to him in the Standing Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to challenge me on that? [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, he should seek to do so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is completely incorrect in his assumption. The specific question was not raised. The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the matter previously, and he ought to know by now that his interpretation is wrong.
We fully acknowledge, and we have done so throughout, that the amendment to which he refers now re-hybridises the Bill. It has been treated as such. There has been an opportunity for anyone to petition against it. It has been fully advertised, and I do not know why he persists with the point.

Mr. Morgan: In saying that I am wrong, the Under-Secretary is denying what is in the record of the Standing Committee. Reference was made to the matter in Committee on 17 May, and I questioned the hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee in July 1992. I asked whether he accepted that the amendment would, in effect, re-hybridise the Bill. The hon. Gentleman replied that it would not, and he urged the Committee not to pursue the amendment.
The Minister will be aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee—now the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee—said that the matter should be put right in Standing Committee or in another place. The matter was dealt with in another place, but when I put it to him in the Standing Committee in July 1992, he denied that the effect of the amendment would be to re-hybridise the Bill.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The amendment that we were debating when the hon. Gentleman raised the question in Committee did not re-hybridise the Bill. It is the land drainage amendment that has re-hybridised it.

Mr. Morgan: I am terribly sorry that the Minister has not grasped the fact that land drainage amendment was the one that we were referring to in July 1992 in implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee.
That is the type of problem we face. The rights of petitioners should have been clear to all potential petitioners whose private property rights would be affected. The Conservative party often claims, falsely, to be the only party that looks after private property owners. The rights of those petitioners were affected by the fact that it was not clear whether their properties would be affected at the time of Second Reading and when the Bill was advertised, two years ago tomorrow. That matter was affected later in the Lords, but petitioners did not have a chance to petition both Houses of Parliament.
If the Bill had been delayed for another two months, from November 1991 to January 1992, and if the Secretary of State's groundwater adviser had completed his report, the job could have been done properly. The House would then have had the opportunity, which has now been lost, to debate the implications of the Bill for petitioners.
We could also have debated the problems that can be caused to the occupants of property in the affected areas in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) from rising groundwater that would be occasioned by the barrage.
That is the problem we have, and that is why an unrestricted debate on a relatively small group of Lords amendments would make far more sense. I feel that the rule that the principle of a Bill cannot be amended after Second Reading has been fundamentally undermined, in particular by the attitude of the Minister. He did not accept the offer that was made to incorporate the matter on the advice of the Chairman of the Select Committee when it was raised in Standing Committee in July last year.
As late as 2 August this year, new material was still coming to light that would require examination in the light of the Secretary of State's ringing comments tonight. I may have an opportunity later tonight to refer to the impact of the EC urban waste water directive which comes into effect shortly and will massively affect the way in which the waters of the Taff and the Ely are to be treated. The habitats directive which will be introduced on 5 June next year will also have a massive effect on the way in which nature conservation objections have to be looked at.
A European Court of Justice ruling on the Santona marshes case—a case fairly similar to Cardiff bay—in the matter of proposed special protection areas raises new issues which we have not had an opportunity to look at. That is why I say that a hybrid Bill should not be guillotined. Above all, a re-hybridised Bill should not be guillotined when it has come back from another place with those amendments which re-hybridise the Bill to this House, because hon. Members never had a chance to look at the amendments properly.
The House has not had the chance to look at the powers to go into people's back gardens and dig agricultural land drainage trenches, which have never before been tried in a densely populated area of terraced houses.
Obviously, the powers to get rid of the saturation flooding which is now a danger have been improved. There are amendments covering that subject to which I will refer in a moment. My objection to a timetable is this: why should we restrict a debate on a question that relates to unprecedented engineering works in a densely populated terrace area? That is no problem in sports grounds or in agricultural areas. However, digging under people's back gardens, their favourite goldfish ponds, rockeries, tool sheds and back walls has never been tried before. That should have been properly aired tonight.
The House is on dangerous ground if it allows a guillotine that has never been used before for hybrid Bills. Potential petitioners on future Bills will feel that their rights have been abridged if they are able to petition only one House and not the other. Hon. Members were not

presented with a proper package on Second Reading, because at that time we did not know what the groundwater side effects were.
I will refer to the November 1987 private Bill, which I also referred to earlier in connection with the Secretary of State. Let us assume that the Bill had made great progress in the House, or had started in the Lords before coming to this House. The Bill did not refer to groundwater side effects at all, because work had not been completed.
Let us say that the Government had wanted to get the Bill into the Lords, where it would have been whistled through, with no reference to groundwater side effects. The Bill would have come to this House by the time the initial studies into groundwater had been done by Wallace Evans and Partners. Hon. Members would have said, "My goodness me, 6,000 families may now have their rightful ability peacefully to occupy their houses without groundwater side effects." We did not have an opportunity to consider the Bill's implications on Second Reading in this House because the engineering work had not been completed. We would have been scandalised to learn that 6,000 residents of downtown Cardiff were not to have an opportunity to petition this House when the Bill began its parliamentary process because the corporation had not completed the engineering work.
Because the engineering work was completed late, it was not apparent on Second Reading that there would be massive groundwater side effects across the flat lands around downtown Cardiff. Those effects were discovered when the Bill went to another place. Therefore, the Bill was amended accordingly there, and a pack of amendments were sent back to this House. In effect, those amendments say, "Sorry, we didn't know that there were groundwater side effects when the House of Commons gave the Bill a Second Reading."
Because of the delays with the Bill, we are not facing such a gross abuse of parliamentary procedure. However, we are facing an abuse of parliamentary procedure. The Bill was rushed through this place. If it had been left until January 1992, all the new measures could have been incorporated. However, although it was clear that the groundwater studies would be completed within two months, Second Reading took place in November 1991. That meant that the House of Commons and petitioners could not, on Second Reading, consider the total package.
I have already referred to the first Bill, which appeared in 1987. It is clearly important for us not to curtail debate when petitioners' rights are being undermined and when these problems were not apparent when this House gave the Bill a Second Reading.
On that occasion, there was no reference to the need for an extension of land drainage legislation powers to enable the city council to enter people's backyards to cope with the effects of saturation flooding. That possibility should have been apparent to us on Second Reading. Because it was not, there must be great doubts about the validity of the process by which we will consider the Lords amendments which attempt to correct the defects in the Bill that we considered on Second Reading. That is a strong case for unrestricted debate and against the guillotine as the correct way to proceed.
The Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), will no doubt explain later why he opposed the original Bill about the Taff crossing. That little barrage was proposed by a Labour-controlled county council. The hon. Gentleman was against that. He will no


doubt explain how he came to change his mind, and became a super-salesman for a large barrage proposed by a Tory Government. No doubt he will be able to explain why his predecessor and the Secretary of State's predecessor were also very much against the Usk barrage and very much in favour of the Cardiff bay barrage. Also—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, how does this historical sketch relate to the guillotine motion before us?

Mr. Morgan: A great deal more than the Secretary of State's speech, but perhaps we should consider that tomorrow in the full light of day.
The need for uncompressed debate on the Lords amendments, without a guillotine, is clear. The scene is changing very quickly in Cardiff, and new factors are coming to light. Many of those factors are covered by the amendments and can be discussed in detail. However, some are not.
The Secretary of State hardly referred to the Lords amendments. He maintained that lakes create jobs and he did not want the lake to be delayed as he believed that it would create jobs. That is why he wants to introduce a guillotine motion. I believe that we should consider whether lakes create jobs. We should consider this new voodoo religion about lakes and jobs. No doubt the Minister will be able to justify that when he debates the amendments.
However, the Secretary of State maintained that speed was of the utmost importance. He said that we must get on with the job and set a starting date for the bulldozers to get in.

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps the Secretary of State wants to start his bulldozer up tonight.

Mr. Redwood: I confined my remarks to the guillotine motion and to whether we should make a decision in good time tonight. I argued strongly that we should do that. I did not discuss the amendments, because that is what we will do next. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will be able to discuss the amendments later. If the hon. Gentleman got on with the job, we would have more time to discuss the Lords amendments. I believe that that would be the best thing to do in the circumstances.

Mr. Morgan: I am not sure what the Secretary of State is trying to say. He wants to start the procedure for building the barrage as though that would happen tomorrow if we approve the guillotine motion tonight. Whether or not we approve the guillotine motion has no bearing on the start date for the barrage.
We want to raise many points as a result of the concerns that have been expressed. Some of those points will be dealt with later. The Secretary of State should realise that the way in which the Bill has meandered its way through both Houses of Parliament is the result of the Government's inability to do their homework before presenting the Bill to the House. That is why there are Lords amendments.
Most of the Lords amendments stem from the Government, at the request of the local authorities and some objectors. Therefore, some of those amendments

must be debated tonight. Should we curtail debate on those amendments when they relate to the protection of ordinary residents of downtown Cardiff, many of whom are in my constituency and in the other two Cardiff constituencies which are affected? That is a strong argument against the guillotine motion, and that is why we will oppose it tonight.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that the guillotine motion is wholly unnecessary. If it is necessary for me to do so, I remind the House that the whole of the Cardiff bay development area lies in my constituency. That is why I have taken a particular interest in this measure in its various forms and why I acted as sponsor for the Bill when it was a private Bill in this House.
The guillotine is unnecessary, for a very simple reason. All we have to deal with is Lords amendments, which are largely beneficial. There are some exploratory amendments to the Lords amendments, and it is right that they should be discussed and that we should ensure that, in the narrow area covered by the Lords amendments, this House gets it right.
The Bill is important to my constituency because it is likely greatly to improve the environment of south Cardiff. Since the last century, south Cardiff has suffered from the dirt and the impact of heavy industry as a result of the export of coal. It has been left with the detritus of heavy industry as our coal and steel industries have closed down, as the transport industry has diminished and as heavy industry generally has receded from the southern part of the city. That is a matter of grave concern. While my constituents have suffered that dirt and disruption, the jobs on which so many of them depended for a decent standard of living have also receded.
The Bill will do a great deal to improve the situation. It will create an environment in which it will be far more pleasant for people to live. It will also bring back jobs to south Cardiff, which used to be the powerhouse of the city and of south Wales. The interdependence of Cardiff and the valleys of south Wales is as relevant today as it has been over the decades.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend is making interesting points, and I fully respect his knowledge of the issue. However, is he not talking more in terms of the glossy brochures than the reality, which is that the market conditions are currently extremely flat? There is little or no prospect of property developers taking up the opportunities and challenges.
Although the proposal may be wonderful, it may be a prospect of a rather distant future. It is certainly more distant than when the Bill began its passage, which will be so abruptly and brutally curtailed by the guillotine motion. I can think of no better example of the arrogance of power than the way in which the Government are curtailing tonight's debate.

Mr. Michael: Interestingly, my hon. Friend brings me precisely to the point that I was about to make before his intervention. The delays that have taken place do not concern me greatly, because, if the Bill had been passed more quickly, pressure for building and the sale of land


would have begun in the depths of the recession, so the project would not have returned its value either to the public purse or the city of Cardiff.
However, it is important that the barrage should now proceed as quickly as possible so that the opportunities can be taken. Over the past week, NCM has laid the foundation stone of its new premises, which I very much welcome. Further delay would be foolish, and might mean that we would miss the boat for some opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East is right to say that, because of the recession, nothing has been lost by the delay.
There is no need for a guillotine motion, because the principles of the Bill have been dealt with exhaustively. The Bill has passed the exhaustive tests to which it was put during its passage through the House, and it has passed tests from outside. The principles are not before us today. Instead, we face a series of amendments that I would describe as fairly minor, but helpful. There was no need for the Government to take the draconian measure of a guillotine when we need to debate, explore and get right certain aspects of the Bill. Debating the guillotine motion is preventing us from debating the amendments.
One of the important factors that should be recognised is the capacity that Cardiff has and always has had to achieve partnership such as that between local authorities and the private sector that enabled the enormously successful redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff in the 1970s, in which the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I were involved in our previous capacities as members of Cardiff city council. That opportunity for partnership also exists with the barrage.
In the run-up to the general election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) made it clear that there is no cross-party division on the principle of the barrage. One understands the reservations expressed earlier by my hon. Friends who represent some of the valleys constituencies, and especially by my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), but we should recall that a vision across the political divide has led us to where we are today.
The vision of the Labour local authority, led at that time by Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, and that of the Secretary of State at that time, now Lord Crickhowell, brought together the combination of forces that began the process—initially, it was a private Bill. We should pay tribute to that vision.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East encourages me to be brief. The guillotine procedure means that we have a maximum of two hours debate, which includes the time that is taken to debate the guillotine. The briefer we are in debating the guillotine, the longer we have to debate the amendments.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is absolutely right: the longer we spend on the guillotine, the less time we have to debate the amendments.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for that confirmation, Madam Deputy Speaker. For that reason, I shall draw my remarks to a close.
I am as eager to discuss the amendments to the Lords amendments as my hon. Friends who have tabled them. Had the Government not chosen to table a guillotine motion, we would be debating the Lords amendments already—that was an error on their part.
I hope very much that we shall now be able to dispose of the guillotine motion speedily, whether by passing it or by the Government withdrawing it—it matters little. The Lords amendments are largely beneficial, and it is important that my hon. Friends should be able to make whatever exploration they wish. It is right that the amendments are phrased properly to address the issues correctly, to ensure that the legislation is as good as possible.
Across the parties, we should speed the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill on its way, so that construction can begin, the environment for my constituents can improve, and their hope for jobs and an enhanced standard of income is realised. That is why I have supported the Bill from its earliest days, and why many hon. Members of both parties have supported its principles, as have my predecessor Lord Callaghan and others in another place.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I approached the debate with a certain mellow resignation. Like other hon. Members who are veterans of the Bill, I have grown old during its passage. I was middle-aged when the Bill was introduced, and have become progressively mature.
That mellow resignation lasted until I heard the speech made by the Secretary of State. He said that perhaps hon. Members were trying to get an entry into "The Guinness Book of Records" for the time that the Bill has taken. The Secretary of State was clearly trying to break another record: cramming in as many banal buzz words to a square inch of Hansard as possible. All we heard from the Secretary of State was a series of banal buzz words about the scheme. As he has all the zealotry of a person who has only recently discovered the location of Cardiff bay, I ought to respond to some of his points.

Mr. Morgan: Was the Secretary of State saying that, if the barrage were built, he would agree to spend one night there during his tenure of office?

Mr. Rowlands: I am concerned that the Secretary of State should spend as much time as he can finding out the true economic and industrial needs of the nation, not only of Cardiff but of the communities that I represent.
The Secretary of State's observations exhibited the repeated belief that somehow the marina and the barrage will be the great regenerators of the economy—apparently not only in Cardiff, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, the whole of south Wales.
My hon. Friend rightly said that, curiously, as a result of the prolonged scrutiny of the Bill, an amazing transformation has taken place over the past five or six years. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) have said that, when the Bill started out, marinas and barrages were the buzz schemes of the day—that is, they were part and parcel of the ethos of mid-1980s Thatcherism, that the world was all about leisure services, and that that was the economic future which involved the creation of jobs.
In the past five or six years, the bubble—the concept that the future development of great cities such as Cardiff lay in leisure complexes, theme parks and the notion that


that, together with property inflation, would somehow regenerate the economy—has burst. In some ways, it is fortunate that we have seen the coming and going of a fad.

Mr. Anderson: Perhaps I should declare an interest. I live in the Swansea marina, alongside the Swansea barrage. Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect that, during the period that the Bill has been going through the House, the Swansea barrage was built, and that no barrage, wherever it is sited, will stimulate job development if there is flatness in the economy and in the property market. Although barrages can provide a basis, an infrastructure or a possibility, much more than that is required for the jobs to come.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The simple conclusion to draw from the concept of economy-derived services is that there must be other jobs creating income to spend on those leisure services. It is not a matter of creating wealth: the question is on what one spends the wealth that has already been created.
The assumption behind many schemes, of which Cardiff bay barrage is a glorious example, was that they would somehow regenerate the economy not only of Cardiff but, apparently, of the whole of south Wales. In the five years in which we have been debating the Bill, that argument has been well and truly punctured. Thankfully, the 1990s will not be about barrages and marinas: they will be about manufacturing and industrial economic regeneration, which will generate money to spend on certain leisure activities. Such schemes are not real generators of economic development.
The bubble has also burst in property and property inflation. From the start, the scheme was based upon an assumption about property inflation—that is, that one could not go wrong if one invested in property such as office blocks or high-class appartments and if one was surrounded by bobbing yachts and harbour development, because property inflation would justify such a scheme. In the past five years, fortunately—this is why I will not support the motion—we have seen that bubble burst, too.
The interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Swansea, East were well illustrated. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth understandably said that it is perhaps fortunate that there has been a modest delay, because Cardiff bay will now catch the tide of economic revival, and that delays have not been too costly, because there has been a recession, but he has not recognised that it is not a temporary shift in the property market. I hope that it is a sea change in attitude to property, the value of property and inflation as an economic regenerator.
I hope that, in the 1990s, we will not chase huge property profits, and that we have got that attitude out of our system. The rest of the world did not follow that attitude—except, possibly, Japan, and it is now running into problems as a result. We have to ram home the message that the scheme was based upon property inflation way above normal rates of inflation. The Government preach zero inflation. With zero property inflation, the schemes that we have been asked to endorse have no future.

Mr. Anderson: It would be very difficult to submit that another property boom is just around the corner or that there are green shoots or blue shoots. Bearing in mind the housing market, with its overhangs and repossessions, and

the office market, with its tremendous over-capacity, it is very unlikely that there will be anything like a recurrence as far ahead as property people can usefully plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only people who were certain to benefit from the development were the property developers, and that even their benefit might now be in doubt?

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that we have got property inflation out of our system. It was the only basis of the mid-1980s boom. When the bubble burst, the boom burst with it. Also, there was the notion that, with many office blocks being built, there would be many jobs. As we have pointed out many times in the past five years, they are only assumptions about jobs, not actual jobs.
It was assumed that, if one built an office block and divided it into the number of jobs that one could put into it, one would create that number of jobs. Some office blocks could lie empty. Scattered around the country, as a result of alterations in the economy and the coming of office technology, we will find a different attitude to job creation in the world of office development.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend consider it ironic that, in June, across the channel from Cardiff, Avonmouth docks took its first 100,000 tonnes of coal to displace Welsh coal, and that, although we see a very welcome development on the Cardiff foreshore, on the other side of the channel we have seen real, well-paid jobs literally being exported?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members will be aware that we are supposed to be debating the guillotine motion.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not know whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth based his discussion of the guillotine motion on the fact that the development was required because of the dust and noise created by the coal industry in the valleys in the 19th century, and that it was part and parcel of clearing away that tradition and history. My hon. Friend was referring to that tradition, which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard more about the Cardiff bay barrage than almost anyone except Members who are present, so I am well briefed on it.

Mr. Rowlands: I know that you are well briefed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out the relationship between the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
From the start, I have been concerned about pre-emption of the public expenditure involved. It was first estimated that the barrage would cost £45 million, in the late 1980s it was costed at £85 million, and I understand that it is now estimated to cost more than £150 million. I hope that, before the night is out, the Minister will tell us what the cost is. We have seen a massive escalation in the public cost of the scheme, and it cannot be attributed only to inflation. The cost has exploded in the past five years, and so has barrage-related expenditure. We are talking about another £450 million to £500 million.
I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to one part of that expenditure. Although not directly related to


the barrage itself, there is a scheme for one and a quarter miles of road, including a tunnel and a bridge, which will cost £135 million. That is the last estimate that I have received. For £135 million, the heads of the valleys road could be made into a dual carriageway.
One can argue about public expenditure, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, with whom I have disagreed and argued on that matter, has often justified it, but the simple point is that a mile and a quarter of road, which is an integral and intrinsic part of the scheme to make the south of Cardiff and the Cardiff bay barrage more attractive, is costing £135 million. It is one of the most expensive roads ever to be built in Britain.
My hon. Friend will say that that mile and a quarter of road is vital to the development of Cardiff, South. If an equivalent amount was spent on the heads of the valleys road, it would have enormous economic regenerative consequences. Fifty per cent. of that money is coming out of the same budget for which we compete with other roads.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is wrong. In referring to the Butetown area through which that road passes, he is talking about one of the most deprived communities in Britain—a community that has suffered all the worst effects of the old heavy industry and its replacement. The cut and cover does not so much help the economic regeneration of the area as stop that deprived community being cut in half, which would have been the result of the road going through without the cut and cover. Whereas I bow to my hon. Friend's expertise in regard to the finance of any issue, the community-based nature of that part of the development is absolute. I hope that he will recognise that.

Mr. Rowlands: Nothing can be absolute, everything is relative, but I recognise the significance, importance and value of that road to my hon. Friend and his constituents. I was merely drawing to his attention what the equivalent amount of public money could do in another community, and the regenerative consequences and potential of spending that amount of money—or at least half of it, because half of it would come from South Glamorgan, the other half from the Welsh Office.
From the start of my contributions to the debates, I have concentrated on one issue—the nature of the costs. I was once accused of being a one-man Public Accounts Committee on the Bill. I therefore end as I began five years ago, by saying that, when the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us the latest estimates of the relative costs on which we have challenged him during the past five years of discussions on the Bill.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Unlike you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not been privileged to listen to debates on the subject of the Cardiff Bay barrage since November 1987. But I have been here long enough to notice a certain lack of harmony on the Opposition Front Bench on that topic.
It was particularly interesting to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) expatiating at his usual length on every conceivable aspect of the Bill other than the guillotine motion, raking up the past and going right back to November 1987, and doing so in his usual rambling and disconnected manner. It was interesting also

to contrast that with the enthusiastic attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has always demonstrated a positive attitude towards the barrage.

Mr. Michael: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to try to cause division between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The hon. Gentleman will not succeed in that effort. By insulting my hon. Friend, all he is doing is taking up time that we could use to debate the Lords amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we are not yet debating the Lords amendments; we are still debating the guillotine motion—as I keep re-emphasising.

Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman has failed to dissuade the House from what is clearly obvious, that there is a conflict between him and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Nobody could be blind to that.
I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth about his support for the barrage, but I cannot see the logic in his remarks against the guillotine this evening. Quite plainly, it would be in the interests of those who want to get on with debating the substance of the matter were the debate on the guillotine motion to be cut short so that we would then have more time to debate the Lords amendments.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can spell it out to the hon. Gentleman. If he sits down now, and we finish the debate on the guillotine, we shall be able to debate the Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman is preventing us from doing so.

Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He has had his say on whether we should proceed to a guillotine on that important matter, and I. believe that I should also have that right.
It is always illuminating to see such conflicts on the Labour Front Bench on this topic. In my brief period here, I cannot recall any other issue that has led to a more relentless flow of disconnected verbiage from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we hear a great deal about guillotine motions and how undemocratic and difficult they are, when the Labour party was in power, the Leader of the Opposition himself was always willing to use the power of the guillotine, as he did on devolution? Does my hon. Friend wish to make any comment on the general balance of opinion within the Labour party as to which is the best approach?

Mr. Sweeney: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. It is interesting that, when a guillotine motion is debated, the Labour party chooses to ignore its own record on similar occasions in the past.
The Cardiff Bay barrage has already had an ample airing, both in the House and in another place. The delay in moving forward, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has quite rightly pointed out, may have worked to our advantage, in that we have come to the end of the recession, land prices are beginning to rise, and this is an excellent time to move forward.
With the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has said, there may


be some benefit from the delay. That does not justify us in further delay on that matter today. Clearly, we have reached a stage in our deliberations at which my right hon. Friend is fully justified in urging the House to proceed as expeditiously as possible with the debate.
It is interesting that not only is there a conflict between—
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [27 October 1992].
Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [27th October 1992] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
2. —(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.


7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Labour Members to argue strenuously and vehemently for the guillotine motion to be defeated and then not to call a vote on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Everything has been in order so far.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), we are not anxious to delay the proceedings unnecessarily by causing a vote to take place. We want the remaining hour so that we can debate the Lords amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 13

USE BY VESSELS AND FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 25, at end insert—
("(1A) In managing the outer harbour the Development Corporation shall secure that it is at all times available for use by pleasure craft and other vessels which—

(a) are about to pass to, or have recently passed from, the inland bay, or
(b) need to use it as a harbour of refuge.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), at end add—
'and may recover reasonable costs so incurred from Associated British Ports.'.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to move an amendment to a Lords amendment. It is a rare parliamentary life form that I have not had to deal with from the Front Bench until now. It is an added pleasure to extend one's experiences in this regard.
First, I shall explain the purpose of the Lords amendment that we are seeking to amend. The Lords amendment—I am sure that the Minister will explain this in a few moments—covers the purposes to which the water area immediately outside the barrage can be put.
The reason why the Lords amendment has been tabled relatively late in the day is that the outer harbour is a late addition to the design of the barrage. It represents the culmination of a lengthy process of lobbying and negotiations with various yachting and sailing interests in the south Wales area—in Penarth and Cardiff. Many of my constituents enjoy sailing in the area and, obviously, they do not want their ability to sail to be abridged in any way by the barrage. The barrage will create some problems through the locking. However, there will be some gains as well as problems.
Rather than simply look at the barrage as a wall across the two estuaries of the Taff and the Ely—one had to pass by a lock—it was decided that an outer harbour should be built outside the barrage. The Lords amendment relates to the addition of the outer harbour, and extends the management responsibilities of the development corporation with regard to the outer harbour. The problem with that—we are seeking to deal with this in our amendment to the Lords amendment—is that the open water is basically the shipping channel.
We are not now dealing with the so-called inland bay, which was the obsession and on which we spent many days and hundreds of hours of debate. When one is in the Bristol channel, one is outside the lock and near commercial shipping lanes. Those shipping lanes are always a matter of considerable conflict between yachting interests and commercial shipping interests. In this case, commercial shipping interests are those who are making their way in or out of the Cardiff docks. Now that we are dealing with not the inland bay or the structure of the barrage but the add-on

immediately outside, we must be sure that we have a fair partition of the costs that could arise between the commercial operation of Associated British Ports and the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

Mr. Alun Michael: In this amendment, I think that my hon. Friend is trying to find a means of recovering finance for the operation of the development corporation. I am sure that the corporation will regard that as immensely helpful. However, I do not understand the relationship between ABP and the outer harbour. I understand that the amendment relates to the area that will be used by yachts and small boats but not by ABP or, indeed, any other commercial shipping organisations. Much as I understand my hon. Friend's desire to find a means of adding to the corporation's income, I do not see why the burden should fall there.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. The problem is that it is hard to see exactly where the line should be drawn between the outer harbour and the commercial shipping area. Until the recent addition of the little harbour of refuge area, we were dealing with a fixed wall and everything inside the wall that is affected by it. The area outside the wall is a grey area—it is much more difficult to get a clear distinction, although such a distinction is necessary because of the relationship between ABP and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. We on this side have never been happy with that relationship because of the position of Lord Crickhowell in the other place.

Mr. Rod Richards: When the hon. Gentleman says "We on this side", can we be sure that he is speaking for the Labour party? Is the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) or the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) speaking for the Labour party? What precisely is the Labour party's view of the amendment? The hon. Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth seem to be at odds on this point, as well as on the general principle.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's filibuster. He is a member of the party of so-called progress which is trying to get the Bill through rapidly so that the bulldozers can move in. I am not sure what he is saying. Obviously, he is well aware that I am the Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs with regard to the Bill, and that I must communicate with my hon. Friends, who are naturally sensitive, for the purposes of clarifying the amendment.

Mr. Michael: I ask my hon. Friend not to be drawn to one side by the irrelevant and unhelpful intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are dealing with the way in which costs relating to the outer harbour will be dealt with. The outer harbour is important in terms of yachting. I understand that the Lords amendment seeks to resolve any doubt that someone will pay for the whole issue.
What I am concerned about—the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was trying to distract us—is the relevance of ABP in that regard, because I understand that the area that will be enclosed with the outer harbour will be used exclusively by yacht and pleasure boat users. That


area does not come into the field of ABP with regard to the property on the Grosvenor water side or the operational use of the docks.

Mr. Morgan: I am seeking to clarify where commercial shipping stops and leisure sailing starts. Clearly, leisure sailing is enjoyed within the bay, the locks and the inland bay which is referred to several hundred times in the Bill. The outer harbour is a relatively late addition and so far has been explored only to a limited degree. There is no natural break between it and commercial shipping lanes. What is a small commercial ship? What is a large yacht? How are they to be distinguished from one another? Do both have the right to use the harbour of refuge during storm conditions when both might wish to get close to harbour?

Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend said that he was clarifying these amendments. We in the Rhondda valley are greatly concerned about the millions of pounds from the local government kitty spent on financing this, whatever it is. My constituents are most concerned to know how they will eventually reach the sea in their pleasure craft. If they sail down the Rhondda and into the inland bay, how do they then get direct access? I know that a few of them would like to sail up towards north Wales and get hold of the hon. Gentleman, whose name I am not sure of—I have heard him called many names, but I can never remember his real name.
How do navigators from the Rhondda, from Ferndale and Maerdy, get a pleasure craft out into the channel? I am not sure how that is to be done. All this money is being spent, yet my constituents cannot take their boats out. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) comes from Maerdy. His family have a huge pleasure craft. Years ago, they used to go to Porthcawl in it, but nowadays things have changed completely. I wish that my hon. Friend would clarify how pleasure craft will be able to get out into the channel.

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that I can clarify that. Navigators would sail out into the Bristol channel at high tide. It is certainly not possible at low tide, which is why we have an outer harbour supposedly to act as a harbour of refuge. That is our main concern in the amendment to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I will give way for another filibuster.

Mr. Evans: The amendment to the Lords amendment provides that costs may be recovered from ABP. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will in due course explain why that will be necessary. Can he tell the House whether he has canvassed this proposition with ABP and what its reaction was?

Mr. Morgan: I am not sure why Government Back Benchers, having been anxious to pass the guillotine, are spinning out proceedings on this amendment by asking idle questions. Are they perhaps extremely worried about the vote on the next business? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Yes, I will answer the question. It would have been extremely inappropriate for me to discuss or canvass, as the hon. Gentleman puts it in his lawyer's language, the matter with ABP because of the dangerously incestuous

relationship between ABP and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. After all, the corporation was set up by Lord Crickhowell who, after he left this place, became a member of the board of ABP. The corporation gave £2·5 million to ABP only a few months ago as a straight grant under its urban investment powers. So, no, I will certainly not canvass ABP about who should pay for what.
I am extremely concerned about Lord Crickhowell's position as the director of a company that is a direct beneficiary to the tune of £2·5 million of the development corporation. I am anxious to establish who should be charged for what and to ensure that ABP, having got £2·5 million from the corporation, should not be able to get any more by not paying its fair share of costs in respect of boats taking advantage of the harbour of refuge on their way to Cardiff bay. Although the harbour of refuge is designed for pleasure sailors, it is difficult to restrict its use.

Mr. Roger Evans: rose—

Mr. Morgan: The next one is lining up. I am pleased to see further evidence of a Government filibuster. Three is definitely a filibuster.

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to charge on to ABP the charge for commercial shipping usages, which at least is a consistent line of argument, can he explain why he has tacked this particular phrase on to the end of a Lords amendment, which talks both about
pleasure craft and other vessels
and apparently does not make the distinction that he makes? Or is he simply trying to make a distinction for vessels using the harbour as a place of refuge? It is not clear what his wording accomplishes.

Mr. Morgan: As always, the hon. Gentleman raises the legal niceties of any issue. He has drawn our attention to an extremely important pointer in the Lords amendment. The use of the harbour of refuge is not restricted to pleasure craft. The Lords amendment refers to "other vessels". That is an open category and could cover small commercial craft. Those small commercial craft will pay harbour dues when they eventually reach Cardiff or Barry—it is more likely to be Cardiff than Barry—but they will have had the advantage of what might be called a free gift from the taxpayer, primarily intended for pleasure craft, but difficult to restrict in storm conditions at low tide when it is difficult to make ground.
Low tide has always caused a problem for sailing in the upper Bristol channel and for the docking of commercial vessels in the commercial ports of Cardiff and the now closed port of Penarth. That windfall should be reflected in some way in their harbour dues. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. He is making my point for me. We need a re-partition of costs that reflects the intent of the Lords amendment which, clearly, is not confined to pleasure craft. It also covers other vessels which could include small commercial vessels.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that tacking on the words
and may recover reasonable costs so incurred from Associated British Ports
to clause 13 would be an attack on pleasure craft users in Wales who want to be able to use this harbour area free of costs? How can he possibly justify that? Is it not an attack on the rights of people in Wales who want to use their pleasure craft in the traditional way?

Mr. Morgan: That is absolutely the reverse of the case. A pleasure craft has every right to use a harbour of refuge. The harbour exists for such craft. Commercial craft should not be able to make free use, although they should be able to make use, of a harbour of refuge as they ply their trade towards Cardiff docks, Newport docks or Bristol. Surely, Tory Members would agree with the philosophy that a commercial trader should pay for additional benefits that come as a windfall from endeavours to provide safer conditions for sailing in the stormy, choppy waters and highly tidal waters—that is the added problem—of the upper Bristol channel.
What to do at low water in a storm has always been the problem in the Bristol channel. It is impossible to get back into port because of the low tide, yet it is necessary to find shelter in the lee of Penarth Head. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) being as interested in Welsh affairs as he is, will be aware that Penarth Head is almost a natural harbour, breaking up the waves from about 25 ft to 5 ft inside Penarth Head. That is of enormous advantage for the safety of sailors. I do not object to commercial craft having use of the harbour, but they should pay their share. Obviously, it should be done by a roundabout route as they will pay dues to the commercial port where they dock. It is likely to be ABP.
Associated British Ports should therefore have to chip in for the benefit so that it does not get the same type of windfall gains as it received in the case of the £2·5 million that it was gifted by Cardiff Bay development corporation a couple of months ago, to which I strongly object.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend still has not addressed the central problem of clause 13, which is how the people of the Rhondda, in their pleasure craft—and some of them in their coracles—come down into the harbour of refuge. If one cannot get from outside in, how can they get from inside out? It is all right in north Wales. For instance, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is an expert on marinas and I cannot think of anyone who could be more expert. In south Wales, however, we have special problems, and so many people in the valleys are bursting to get out into that harbour of refuge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that there is special provision for the valleys in the Bill, and he hopes that there will be a spin-off for them. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) spell out what will be the spin-off for the valleys from the clause?

Mr. Morgan: The spin-off for the valleys may be by way of the salmon getting up to the valleys through the fish pass, but I am not sure whether yachts can make it up to the valleys as easily as the salmon. Obviously, I want to make various arguments of that kind about nature conservation, but I do not think that tonight is the place to make them.
We have given a clear exposition of why the House should properly consider the amendment, and I draw my remarks to a close.

Mr. Roger Evans: I can understand the force of the argument that commercial usage should lead to some form of recovery of costs by the development corporation from Associated British Ports. Whether that is right or wrong as a matter of policy, at least it is a consistent and rational

idea. I am worried that the amendment to the Lords amendment proposed does not achieve the result that the hon. Member seeks.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman says that.

Mr. Evans: It matters, because when Parliament produces wording in such a fashion that someone else subsequently has to interpret it, hon. Members cannot complain, as they should, when the law is not as they wished it to be. We have to get it right.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister, makes his living by trawling over the mistakes of Parliament. If the laws came out perfectly from the House perhaps all he would need to do would be to retire, which may not be a bad thing.

Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations about my retirement.
There is a serious point which cannot be written off as simply a matter of lawyers and legalese. It is the question of whether Parliament knows what it wants to achieve, and achieves it in legislation. If the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve the policy that he set out to achieve, I can understand it. Whether it is right is an entirely different matter. The issue is that the amendment to the Lords amendment which he has drafted and is supporting does not distinguish between commercial craft and pleasure craft. What he has done is to tack amendment (a) on the end of the existing Lords amendment to clause 13.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman forgets that, if a pleasure craft does not enter the lock gates at Cardiff docks, Newport docks or Barry docks, it will not have any transactions with Associated British Ports. Only the non-pleasure craft that are referred to in the amendment could possibly be eligible to pay dues to Associated British Ports, of which it in turn would have to contribute part to the Cardiff Bay development corporation to recompense the taxpayer for the facility that would have been provided by the Bill.

Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I regret to say that the wording does not accomplish that. If he wishes it to accomplish what he seeks to accomplish, he should say so in specific and direct terms. On that basis, I oppose his amendment.

Mr. Paul Flynn: My objection to the Lords amendment is the wording "at all times available", which will cause practical problems and serious environmental consequences. During the summer months, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I, in our researches for the debate tonight, went to Iceland to visit the Myvatn lakes. Myvatn means midge lakes. We inspected the lake there, which is a similar size to the lake that will be created at Cardiff bay. The birds that nest there during the summer months move to Cardiff to winter. Our trip was thorough and educational.
If the scheme goes ahead, a harbour of refuge will be created that may be available at all times. My hon. Friend referred to it as in the lee of Penarth. That celebrated hill of Penarth is the hill that hon. Members will remember from the celebrated poem by Tennyson:
Break, break, break,
On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!
And I would that my tongue could utter


and so forth. That well known poem refers to the stately ships going by to the harbour under the hill—the refuge harbour under the hill, as Tennyson would write if he were writing today.
6.45 pm
If that harbour of refuge is to be created, and if it is to be available at all times, the supporters of the amendment seem to have ignored the rise and fall of tide in the Bristol channel, which is the second highest rise and fall of tide anywhere in the world. If the harbour is open and available and if water is coming in any time during the 24-hour cycle, the effects will be serious.
Many people have mentioned the birds that come from Myvatn. That is a very different stretch of water, because Myvatn is filled with meltwater from the Yokull, as they call it—a similar word to Welsh—the glaciers around the lake. The harbour would be fed by a different source of water, but there would be a transformation, in that, at the moment, Cardiff bay supports many forms of wildlife, which depend on the nature of the water, the solidity of the water and the fresh water, and that would change fundamentally.
One of the great puzzles at the moment is the success of the cormorants in Cardiff bay. They can only survive in clear water, and the water in Cardiff bay is very turbulent—as it is throughout the Bristol channel—with mud usually held in suspension. It is one of the great puzzles of the whole of the Bristol channel that in my constituency, and all along the coast at certain times, clean rock is exposed and at other times the rock is covered with a foot of mud. It depends on the amount of mud that is held in suspension. That is a crucial point. Those cormorants are surviving against all the information that ornithologists give us, because they should not be able to see the fish that they catch in the water, but they manage, against all odds in the turbulence of the water, to survive and multiply well.
When the barrage is constructed, there will be a great increase in the number of cormorants, but I believe that the growth and habitat of those cormorants will be vitally affected if the harbour of refuge is available at any time of day.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am trying to follow what he is saying. He says that the improved quality of the water in the bay will lead to increased activity by cormorants. Do I have him correct?

Mr. Flynn: Yes. I reject the argument that the barrage will destroy the habitat, because I believe that in many ways it will change it for the better. The occasional summer visitors that come down might find other habitats for their refuge, in the same way as my constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is difficult to relate these cormorants to Associated British Ports. Is the hon. Gentleman going to find a linkage?

Mr. Flynn: I think I am making the point in the original amendment, which says:
In managing the outer harbour the Development Corporation shall secure that it is at all times available".
We cannot ignore the effect that that will have on wildlife. One form of wildlife has been totally neglected in all the passionate pleas that have been made in this debate. I found it difficult to oppose the guillotine motion with my normal passion and conviction and to say that we must not stop

debate on an issue that has taken only 68 days of parliamentary time—more than any business in the House since the Corn Laws.
However, I wish to discuss a neglected form of wildlife that has hardly been mentioned. We have already heard all about the redshanks and we have now heard a bit about the cormorants, but a precious form of wildlife exists in Grangetown and the docks will be desperately affected if the harbour is open for 24 hours a day—the Grangetown rat, which lives in abundance there.
The rats' habitat is normally undisturbed because they live at the higher reaches of the mud. However, about six times a year the tide reaches a level that interferes with the rats' habitat and they then come over the wall at Windsor esplanade and other areas. You may be surprised to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that local people's enthusiasm for the rat is not as great as it might be. That form of nature may be under direct threat as the barrage would affect and possibly destroy its habitat. That problem must be dealt with tonight.
The harbour of refuge affects a relatively small area of the Bristol channel, but serious problems may arise if we accept, as scientists do, that global warming will alter tidal levels.

Mr. Morgan: Although we are interested in my hon. Friend's observations about rats as a form of wildlife, and are aware of the small section of his constituency between the Old Glamorgan canal and the River Taff referred to as "rat island", will my hon. Friend confirm whether he is discussing brown rats, which are a form of wildlife, or black rats, which are a parasite on man and not native to this country?

Mr. Flynn: I am discussing brown rats. I am well aware of the black rat's effect when it decimated life in Wales and elsewhere. Perhaps we should form an organisation in defence of the rat because it is seriously underloved by nature lovers. It is difficult to understand the idiotic bias towards cuddly, attractive animals rather than celebrating nature in all its glorious variety.
If the harbour of refuge is built, a great difficulty will arise as a result of global warming. Large areas in south Wales will be exposed to flooding if the already high tide rises even higher and is combined with a tidal surge. Will the Minister assure us that, if the harbour of refuge is available at all times, it will not destroy the beautiful new habitat of a range of wildlife or threaten the survival of the Grangetown rat?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I have tried carefully to follow the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and Opposition Members who have spoken in support of the amendment.
The outer harbour will be managed by the development corporation. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) implied, Associated British Ports will neither benefit not suffer as a result of the outer harbour's management. There is no reason, therefore, why it should be expected to meet the development corporation's costs in doing so.
A development agreement exists between ABP and the development corporation. It provides that both bodies will share in the profits arising from the developments that will occur around the inland bay. However, that has nothing to do with the management of the outer harbour.
This amendment, made in another place, typifies the process through which the Bill has gone. There have been extensive negotiations with all the relevant local interests and the development corporation has sought to accommodate all legitimate concerns.
The Royal Yachting Association and the local sailing clubs rightly waited to ensure that the outer harbour would be available for use at all times by vessels that are about to enter the inland bay, ones that have just left or ones which need to use it as a harbour of refuge.
Our acceptance of this and other amendments during the Bill's passage shows that we have kept a balance between the wider benefits of the barrage to the development of Cardiff on the one hand, and the need, on the other hand, to give proper weight to the protection of legitimate local interests.

Mr. Rogers: We still regard the Minister as a Rhondda boy, although he has since lost his way. Will he deal with the serious problem of the Rhondda yachtsmen? He says that he is looking after local interests but how are we to benefit from the outer harbour in the Rhondda? He mentioned the Royal Yachting Association, but has never heard of the Penpisgah yacht club, which is a substantial organisation.

Mr. Jones: Perhaps I should not have given way.
The Royal Yachting Association has sought to represent all yachting associations and our acceptance of the amendment has been to accommodate yachtsmen from the Rhondda and everywhere else.
The barrage will transform an area twice the size of the city centre, much of which has been unknown territory to many who live in the city for far too many years. Environmentally, it will benefit the whole city; economically, its benefit will be felt throughout south Wales.
As one of the few originals involved with this exciting proposal from the outset, I am delighted that the final stage of parliamentary approval has arrived.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister seems to have mixed up his speeches, because that is clearly not the speech that he should be giving in respect of Lords amendment No. 1. It seems to resemble the speech that he gave on Third Reading. Would it be appropriate for him to check whether he has the right speech?

Mr. Jones: No, because it gives me an opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is the only other hon. Member who has been involved in this debate from the beginning. Members representing Cardiff, and even Secretaries of State, have changed, but he and I have been here from the beginning. I could have wished that he shared my pleasure that we are reaching the conclusion tonight.

Mr. Davies: The Minister and I started on this process in 1986. I was opposed to the Cardiff barrage then and have been consistently opposed to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked the Minister earlier to explain why he opposed the measure in 1986 and has subsequently decided to support it.

Mr. Jones: The best answer that I can give is that Cardiff is a fine capital city, with one of the best civic

centres in Europe. What we shall approve today represents not only a major advance of the economy of Cardiff and south Wales but a mighty inheritance which we can proudly pass on to future generations. Nevertheless, it is important that the barrage itself should be designed with the utmost regard to safety. That is why this amendment places a clear duty on the corporation to operate the outer harbour to secure the safety of pleasure craft. In bad weather, not all boats seeking shelter could use the locks at the same time. This amendment ensures that the outer harbour is managed so that it is available for them to shelter safely.
Question put and negatived.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Question agreed to.

Clause 18

APPLICATION OF HARBOURS CLAUSES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 10, line 47, leave out ("24") and insert ("23")

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a drafting amendment to clause 18, which incorporates in the Bill certain provisions of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Subsection (2) lists the provisions that are not to be incorporated, including section 24 of the 1847 Act. However, section 24 will be repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill. The amendment simply ensures that clause 18(2) of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is consistent with the changes that will be affected by the repealing legislation.

Mr. Morgan: May I ask the Minister a question about the return to the legislation of section 24 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847? What exactly will be the impact of omitting it from the omission, as it were?
My question relates very closely to the substance of our last debate. I understand that, as a result of the change, Customs and Excise would be empowered to examine even pleasure vessels moving in and out of Cardiff bay. As has been pointed out, the distinction that existed back in 1847—the date of the Act that is being incorporated in part, although not as a whole, in the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—no longer exists. I refer to the distinction between yachts and pleasure craft, and other ships.
Is it being suggested that drug-running yuppies are using yachts to get in and out, and that Customs and Excise want to reserve the power to board those yachts to find out whether they are carrying illicit cargoes? If the Bill had not been amended, that would be covered, and Customs and Excise would not have lost the power conferred by the 1847 Act. Has this concern arisen suddenly, or is there some other explanation for the late change in the Bill?

7 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be convenient if I tell the House—indeed, I mentioned it last week in the business statement, referring to the possibility that messages from the House of Lords would need to be


considered—that it is proposed that Lords messages relating to the British Railways Bill be considered after the conclusion of this business.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to convey that information to the shadow Leader of the House? Obviously, it was important for the Opposition to be informed of this development.
We are very disappointed that important proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill have been interrupted by this move, which clearly derives from the Government's inability to deliver their majority in either House. Will time be available at the conclusion of our proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill for a debate—albeit brief—on the message from the House of Lords?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should point out that the time is coming out of that allocated by the guillotine motion to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill debate.

Mr. Newton: Further to those points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will, I think, be visible that I had asked for the shadow Leader of the House to be informed of our intention to take this business; but I wanted to let the House know as soon as possible.
There is no question of interrupting proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is proposed that the Lords messages be taken at the conclusion of those proceedings. The guillotine motion that the House passed yesterday provides time for the consideration of Lords messages.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is important. The Leader of the House has, in effect, used a point of order to make a business statement. There was no indication on the screens that such a statement was to be made. Hon. Members who would have wanted to be present have therefore been denied the opportunity. The change in tonight's business should have been shown on every screen in the House, in the ordinary way. The failure to announce it is utterly disgraceful.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Lord President said, his office attempted to notify us; unfortunately, that happened only about 30 seconds ago. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman would be on his feet almost as soon as I had put the phone down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has made an important point. I do not wish to take up the House's time in a guillotined debate, but it is extremely important for all hon. Members to have every opportunity to learn what is likely to happen. I hope that every attempt will be made to communicate that to them.

Mr. Newton: I assure the right hon. Lady that every attempt will be made to act along the lines that have been suggested.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Let me reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). This is purely a drafting amendment to ensure that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is consistent with the repealing legislation.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:-

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 133.

Division No. 391]
[7.04 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evennett, David


Alton, David
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fishburn, Dudley


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert
Foster, Don (Bath)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Peter


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Booth, Hartley
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harvey, Nick


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)






Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knox, Sir David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sackville, Tom


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Legg, Barry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


Maclennan, Robert
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tyler, Paul


Norris, Steve
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Paice, James
Wallace, James


Patnick, lrvine
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Rendel, David
Wilshire, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Derek Conway.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bennett, Andrew F.





Bermingham, Gerald
Livingstone, Ken


Betts, Clive
Loyden, Eddie


Blunkett, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
McFall, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McKelvey, William


Burden, Richard
Mackinlay, Andrew


Byers, Stephen
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Madden, Max


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marek, Dr John


Cann, Jamie
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Coffey, Ann
Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)


Connarty, Michael
Martlew, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Maxton, John


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Milburn, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Miller, Andrew


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cummings, John
Morley, Elliot


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Murphy, Paul


Dafis, Cynog
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Darling, Alistair
O'Hara, Edward


Davidson, Ian
Parry, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Donohoe, Brian H.
Pope, Greg


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Enright, Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Etherington, Bill
Purchase, Ken


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Radice, Giles


Flynn, Paul
Raynsford, Nick


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Reid, Dr John


Fraser, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Garrett, John
Rogers, Allan


Gerrard, Neil
Rooker, Jeff


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rooney, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rowlands, Ted


Gordon, Mildred
Sedgemore, Brian


Gould, Bryan
Sheerman, Barry


Graham, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Simpson, Alan


Hanson, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Spellar, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hutton, John
Wareing, Robert N


Illsley, Eric
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Wise, Audrey


Janner, Greville
Worthington, Tony


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wray, Jimmy


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Khabra, Piara S.



Kilfoyle, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Peter Hain.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House faces an appalling situation tonight. The Government are in a shambles. They have been defeated for the third time in the House of Lords. Now they have had to come here and disrupt a debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which is of immense importance to the people of Cardiff—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must put the question on Lords amendment No. 3, and inform the House that it involves privilege.

Lords amendment: No. 3, after clause 21, to insert the following new clause—

Powers to deal with consequences of altered groundwater levels—

(". The Land Drainage Act 1991 shall have effect as if each of the references to flooding in sections 14, 15 and 66 of the Act included a reference to any other adverse consequence of an alteration of groundwater levels occurring as a result of the construction of the barrage.")

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, designated Lords amendment No. 3 as appearing to Madam Speaker to involve questions of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the designated amendment:—
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you please tell us what exactly we are voting on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are voting on Lords amendment No. 3 to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I thought that I had made that adequately clear. Hon. Members should pay attention.

The House having divided:Ayes 294, Noes 140.

Division No. 392]
[7.19 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butler, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Alexander, Richard
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carrington, Matthew


Alton, David
Cash, William


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Coe, Sebastian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Congdon, David


Atkins, Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cormack, Patrick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Bates, Michael
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowden, Andrew
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Elletson, Harold


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas





Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gallie, Phil
Madel, David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Straf'rd-on-A)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rendel, David


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain






Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tyler, Paul


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Steen, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Stephen, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Streeter, Gary
Wallace, James


Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Sweeney, Walter
Ward, John


Sykes, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Widdecombe, Ann


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thomason, Roy
Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tracey, Richard



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Twinn, Dr Ian



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Gould, Bryan


Allen, Graham
Graham, Thomas


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Grocott, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Hain, Peter


Barnes, Harry
Hall, Mike


Battle, John
Hanson, David


Bayley, Hugh
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Heppell, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hinchliffe, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Hood, Jimmy


Betts, Clive
Hoon, Geoffrey


Blunkett, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bradley, Keith
Howellls, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
 Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Byers, Stephen
Hutton, John


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Coffey, Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Connarty, Michael
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Khabra, Piara S.


Corbett, Robin
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Corston, Ms Jean
Leighton, Ron


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davidson, Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McFall, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Denham, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Donohoe, Brian H.
Marek, Dr John


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eastham, Ken
Martlew, Eric


Etherington, Bill
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Milburn, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Miller, Andrew


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul





O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Skinner, Dennis


O'Hara, Edward
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Olner, William
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Spellar, John


Pickthall, Colin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pike, Peter L.
Stevenson, George


Pope, Greg
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Joan


Purchase, Ken
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watson, Mike


Reid, Dr John
Wise, Audrey


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Wray, Jimmy


Rogers, Allan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Gordon McMaster.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to, the Commons being willing to waive their privilege.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments:
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Piers Merchant: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There appears to be some delay in the No Lobby. I should be grateful if that could be investigated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate any further delay.

The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 144.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Division No. 393]
[7.36 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brandreth, Gyles


Aitken, Jonathan
Brazier, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Alton, David
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Ashby, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Coe, Sebastian


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick


Booth, Hartley
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Deva, Nirj Joseph






Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Flshburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Madel, David


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Sir Michael
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hague, William
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard 


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harvey, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Rendel, David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)





Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sackville, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tyler, Paul


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wallace, James


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Wolfson, Mark


Sykes, John
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Thomason, Roy



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Enright, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Battle, John
Fraser, John


Bayley, Hugh
Gapes, Mike


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gordon, Mildred


Betts, Clive
Gould, Bryan


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cryer, Bob
Hutton, John


Cummlngs, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Darling, Alistair
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dixon, Don
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Khabra, Piara S.






Kilfoyle, Peter
Pope, Greg


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Lewis, Terry
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Livingstone, Ken
Primarolo, Dawn


Llwyd, Elfyn
Purchase, Ken


Loyden, Eddie
Radice, Giles


McAllion, John
Raynsford, Nick


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McFall, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McKelvey, William
Rogers, Allan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Gordon McMaster.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 12 accordingly agreed to.

Mrs. Beckett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know how conscious you are, as are all the occupants of the Chair, of your duty to, in particular, Back-Bench Members—a duty which I previously thought was of considerable importance to the Leader of the House. Do you feel that it is in order for the business to be changed in this grossly discourteous way without any proper business statement, without any notice appearing on the Annunciator that anything was being raised in the Chamber and with only a cursory phone call, barely terminated before the Leader of the House rose to his feet, from his office to mine? All that is in order to interrupt guillotined business to tell the House that the Government propose to change the order of business within a few minutes. There can hardly be an hon. Member who can say that they have had adequate notice of what was taking place or adequate time to respond properly. Is that respectful treatment of Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have an opportunity to vote on whether the Lords amendment is taken forthwith.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will understand the anger with which I raise this point of order when you consider that the measure that has been interrupted was the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and that the Cardiff Bay development corporation area is entirely within my constituency. Is it in order for business to be totally disrupted in this way by the Leader of the House wandering in here without notice and taking up time on guillotined business? The Bill is of enormous importance to my constituents, to Cardiff and to the whole of south Wales. The Leader of the House showed no courtesy to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) or to other hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, it was in order or it would have been ruled out of order by the Chair at the time.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will appreciate, there were many angry people in the House when the Leader of the House used a point of order to, in effect, make a business statement. My understanding is that notice of a business statement is not required by Standing Order, but it is a convention—an important convention—of the House. In addition, enumerators have been provided throughout the length and breadth of the House of Commons to provide hon. Members with information. There was no information on the enumerators—
HON. MEMBERS: 'Annunciators'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for me to rule on a point of order if I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cryer: There was no information on the annunciators to tell hon. Members that a business statement disguised as a point of order was being made.
In addition, I raised a further point of order at that time—only a relatively short time ago. I said that the further information about the way that the House was going to deal with Lords messages on the Bill should be on the enumerator—[Interruption.] I mean the annunciator. This vital issue is being trivialised by the pin-striped hooligans on the Government Benches.[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must now settle down. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman expects me to rule on.

8 pm

Mr. Cryer: I do not propose to start again, except to say that there have been difficulties with the various television sets which announce the business of the House across the length and breadth of the Palace. I understand that the information has been changing rapidly and that it did not get the usual amount of time that is allocated to a change of this nature.
The unusual and exceptional circumstances have been brought about by the Government's incompetence. They are organising the prorogation of the House on Friday, not the Opposition. We are prepared to come back and work. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have now taken the hon. Gentleman's message, and I fully understand the point that he is making. He made a similar point earlier. Will he conclude his point of order, and may we have quiet to allow the Chair to hear?

Mr. Cryer: May I ask, in view of the serious confusion which is prevailing tonight, that the House adjourns for 15 minutes? That would allow the usual channels to arrange for the proper conduct of business. It would also allow hon. Members who are not here to receive a clear message on the television sets which announce the business that there will be a debate on the messages from the Lords, according to the decision which was made yesterday, for one hour once that debate has started. That is a reasonable request, and I put it to you that it should be accepted.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will deal with points of order one at a time. Before I deal with the point of order


that has just been made, I hope that all points of order are genuine and are not delaying tactics. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that the Government have also noted it. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, at the end of the proceedings last night, we appointed a Committee to draw up reasons to persuade the House of Lords that they should agree with this House.
Can you explain how I can see a copy of the reasons that were drawn up? What process is there for the Lords to communicate to this House the reasons why they turned down our request? I hope that you will accept that it is unsatisfactory for the Government to rush through a measure such as this. I have a large number of British Rail pensioners in my constituency, and a large number of constituents who use British Rail. They have every right to know the reasons why the Government are pushing the measure through the House with such disgusting and indecent haste.
I hope that you can explain what was said in the Committee that drew up the message to the Lords, why the Lords did not accept the message and what further action hon. Members can take to make sure that we are properly informed before we are rushed into a further debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. They have been included in today's Votes and Proceedings. The Lords have not disagreed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of it, but it was announced on the House of Lords annunciators that the Lords would have to hang around for a while. It seems rather strange to me that the Government, who do not have the guts to tell the House of Commons, informed Members of the House of Lords to hang about late tonight before they made the announcement in this House.
We have come to a tidy pass when the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons are bypassed to tell their people in the Lords to stay on. Some of those people were not ready to stay on in the House of Lords. The net result is that doctors and nurses will be needed over there. The matter needs investigating.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order has nothing to do with this House.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put it to you that the last vote should be taken again. There is no doubt that the Division Bells did not ring on the ground floor of the House. A few hon. Members who were down there were not aware that a Division was taking place.
I understand, and I have seen it happen on previous occasions, that, according to the rules of the House, if Members say that they were misled by the annunciators and by the Division bells, they have the right to demand that the Division be taken again. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was not a fair Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is too' late now. No complaint was made at the time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the earlier points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would ask you to rule on whether the Government are playing games with democracy in this place. They could

have made a business announcement days ago about what would happen if the Lords disagreed with us. However, they chose not to. The Leader of the House should have made a business statement, and there was no excuse for his not making one, once the Lords disagreed with the Commons earlier this evening.
There is an issue more important than either of those examples, and it follows the point of order made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It was announced that the House of Lords had been "suspended during pleasure"—that slightly odd phrase[Interruption.] I am told that the mind boggles, but it is not for us to comment on that. The important point is that hon. Members have no opportunity of knowing what was debated in the Lords. We have not had a chance to read Hansard, and have not had an opportunity to hear the Lords' reasons. They were asked to reconsider, and they refused that request, presumably for good reason. The Lords are not so accountable to the Whips as we are.
I would ask you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we do not proceed until we get a proper business statement and until we see the Hansard report of the Lords debate. I would further ask that we do not proceed until consultation takes place, not only with the Labour party's appropriate channels, but certainly with those of my party and—I hazard a guess—those of the other parties, none of whom was consulted at any stage during the day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that the House will have the opportunity to decide whether or not it accepts the decision of the Lords. I have already ruled on the point of order made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
I believe that we have now had sufficient points of order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take a final point of order from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who raised what you must recognise was a very serious matter. He was in a room in the House of Commons and the Division bell did not ring. He was relying on that Bell to tell him that a Division was taking place. My hon. Friend tells me that he missed the vote. If he did miss the vote, surely it is legitimate to request that the Division be repeated.
In the circumstances, surely a check should be made to establish whether the bell was working. If it was not working, one would have thought that the House would want to divide. Surely these are principles that we have established on many occasions before.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want an opportunity to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There was no report that there was a problem with the Division bell. It is now too late to go back on the proceedings. That is my ruling.

Mr. Bennett: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Peter L. Pike: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important constitutional issue where there is a difference between the two Houses and we are waiting to receive a message from the other place. I understand that, when we receive it, the Government will move a manuscript amendment to that message from the Lords. I do not know whether you are even aware of the terms of that manuscript amendment, but it is clear that Members of both Houses are not aware and I therefore seek your guidance. Would it be appropriate to adjourn for 15 minutes to consider exactly what the Government propose to do before they try to do it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the amendments have been in the Vote Office for some hours. I understand that hon. Members from all parties have copies of the amendments.

Mr. Pike: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that the three amendments from the other House are in the Vote Office, but we are told that Government are to move a manuscript amendment, which is not available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be discussing only the three amendments.

Mr. Bennett: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I understand it correctly, you have just ruled that we shall not be able to debate the manuscript amendment. I find that a little puzzling because I thought that normally the Chair would have to look at the amendments before ruling that we should not debate them. If you have seen them, surely the House should be able to see them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been submitted to the Lords amendments. [Interruption.] Order. I understand that there are hon. Members still in both Lobbies, so will the Serjeant at Arms investigate both Lobbies?

The House having divided: Ayes 29, Noes 389.

Division No. 394]
[8.10 pm


AYES


Ashton, Joe
McAllion, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Bennett, Andrew F.
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Cann, Jamie
Olner, William


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Parry, Robert


Dafis, Cynog
Pickthall, Colin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Purchase, Ken


Enright, Derek
Salmond, Alex


Etherington, Bill
Simpson, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Stevenson, George


Heppell, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Welsh, Andrew


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. John Spellar and


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Alan Meale.


Loyden, Eddie






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Cummings, John


Alexander, Richard
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Alton, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Denham, John


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dicks, Terry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dixon, Don


Aspinwall, Jack
Dobson, Frank


Atkins, Robert
Donohoe, Brian H.


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Dunn, Bob


Bates, Michael
Durant, Sir Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Battle, John
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bayley, Hugh
Elletson, Harold


Beggs, Roy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evennett, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Booth, Hartley
Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Flynn, Paul


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fry, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gapes, Mike


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gardiner, Sir George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Garrett, John


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gordon, Mildred


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Cash, William
Gould, Bryan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clappison, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coffey, Ann
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hall, Mike


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Connarty, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hanson, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David


Cormack, Patrick
Harvey, Nick


Corston, Ms Jean
Haselhurst, Alan


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Nick






Hawksley, Warren
Lidington, David


Hayes, Jerry
Lightbown, David


Heald, Oliver
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Livingstone, Ken


Hendry, Charles
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Hicks, Robert
Lord, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Luff, Peter


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hinchliffe, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Hoey, Kate
McAvoy, Thomas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Macdonald, Calum


Home Robertson, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
MacKay, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Mackinlay, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Maclean, David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Maclennan, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
McMaster, Gordon


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Madel, David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hunter, Andrew
Malone, Gerald


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mans, Keith


Hutton, John
Marek, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Marland, Paul


Jack, Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Jamieson, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Jessel, Toby
Mates, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Merchant, Piers


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Milburn, Alan


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Miller, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Mills, Iain


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Key, Robert
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Khabra, Piara S.
Moate, Sir Roger


Kilfedder, Sir James
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Kilfoyle, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Kirkwood, Archy
Moriey, Elliot


Knapman, Roger
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Mudie, George


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Mullin, Chris


Knox, Sir David
Needham, Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Legg, Barry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Leigh, Edward
Norris, Steve


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
O'Hara, Edward


Lewis, Terry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley





Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spring, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Page, Richard
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Paice, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Steen, Anthony


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stephen, Michael


Pawsey, James
Streeter, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sumberg, David


Pendry, Tom
Sweeney, Walter


Pickles, Eric
Sykes, John


Pike, Peter L.
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomason, Roy


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Randall, Stuart
Thurnham, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rendel, David
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Trotter, Neville


Robathan, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Viggers, Peter


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walden, George


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wallace, James


Rowlands, Ted
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walley, Joan


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Willetts, David


Sims, Roger
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spearing, Nigel



Spencer, Sir Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Michael Brown


Spink, Dr Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

Railways Bill

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have to acquaint the House that the message has been brought from the Lords by— [Interruption.]Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order."] Order. I will take one point of order, of which I have already been given notice, from Dr. John Marek.

Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raise my point of order with you particularly in view of your statement that the only amendments that will be before us are the amendments brought from the House of Lords, labelled 1A, 1B and 1C in the Vote Office. I looked at amendment 1B in the Vote Office, and it says:
Subsection (4), line 6, leave out from ('for') to ('in') and insert ('selection as the franchisee.').
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, look at line 6 of subsection (4) of amendment (a) from last night, you will not see the word "for". That means that you either have a different amendment from the ones that we have in the Vote Office or the amendment patently is nonsense. May I suggest to you that the only way out of this impasse is for us to have a period of consideration and for you to suspend the sitting of the House for 15 minutes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the line number is correct, but it refers to the italics on the bottom of the sheet.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to acquaint the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order."] Order. I have to acquaint the House that
The Lords do not insist on their Amendment to the Railways Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; they agree to an Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu of a Lords Amendment with Amendments to which they desire the agreement of the Commons; they agree, without Amendment, to certain other Amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of that Lords Amendment; and they agree without Amendment to Amendments made by the Commons to certain other Lords Amendments.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be considered forthwith.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is that—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I now speak to the Question that you are about to put?

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Settle down. I shall hear the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The Secretary of State was not here.

Mr. Spearing: I am much obliged.
I seek to illustrate why these messages should not be received or agreed. The Government's technical incompetence on pensions, transport, procedure and prorogation

shows that the Government have got themselves into a tangle that is unprecedented and unfair on British Rail pensioners and, moreover, on Members of the House.
Last night, the House agreed to a Committee withdrawing to a special room behind the Chamber to draw up reasons for the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House has agreed to take the Question forthwith. The clock is running, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and bring his point of order to a rapid conclusion. [Interruption.] Order. I am listening to a point of order. Mr. Nigel Spearing. If there is no point of order, I shall call the Secretary of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments accordingly considered.

Clause 22

PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATORS NOT TO BE FRANCHISEES

Lords amendment to a Commons amendment in lieu of a Lords amendment: 1A, in Subsection (4), line 2, leave out from first ("to") to ("in") and insert ("award a franchise under this Part").

Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I shall also be asking the House to disagree with the other two. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. I gave the hon. Member for Newham, South the opportunity to put his point of order. [Interruption.] Let me have an opportunity to hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Mr. Spearing.

Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making the matter clear. I was under the impression that I was speaking to the debate, not to a point of order. But you have ruled that I am on a point of order, so I shall now put it to you.
Will you please confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the normal circumstances of the House, business that is brought to the House at short notice which, by its nature, cannot be transferred to those who wish to debate here, can be stopped by the House accepting a motion that the House do now adjourn. Will you please confirm that the timetable motion, which was moved by Her Majesty's Government a couple of days ago and accepted by the House, precludes that safeguard for keeping the minorities' rights alive? Therefore, the fact that the Question that has just been put, which was taken forthwith without opposition, means that we will not have the opportunity to move the Adjournment of the House?
Secondly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In an attempt to cool down the excitement, I inform the House that the hon. Member approached the Chair and asked to put that point of order. I took it to be a point of order and that is why I allowed it. I have now got the hon. Member's message, so I call the Secretary of State. [Interruption.]

Mr. MacGregor: I have already begged to move that the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, and I shall be asking the House to disagree with the other two as well. [Interruption.] The three


amendments from the other place that we are being asked to debate are basically about one point, the bidding system for franchises. I remind the House of the objectives of the franchising system—

Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you assure the House that, unlike other Ministers proposing privatisation legislation, the Secretary of State for Transport will not be rewarded by a well-remunerated position on the privatised railways once this legislation has been pushed through—a big fat backhander, like all the rest of them had?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, and it has taken up precious time.

Mr. MacGregor: —and they are all to improve the services for passengers. They will do so by promoting the competition for franchises, by encouraging management buy-outs to provide the franchises, by encouraging new entries into the passenger railway industry to provide more competition for franchises and by preventing the dominance of any one person or persons in the market. Those are the key objectives of the bidding system that we have for franchises.
The amendments passed in the other place this afternoon would seriously undermine all those objectives, for which the House voted last night by a clear majority. I have had reports of the debates in the other place, and the only speaker who addressed the amendments was my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. The rest of the speeches were all extremely general.
Therefore, I propose to address the amendments and explain to the House why we invite the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall tell him the purpose of the amendments. I shall not give way, because we have only one hour. The clock is moving, and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. There is not much time, and it is important that the House understands what we are discussing. I intend to address that, rather then what was said in the other place.
The first two amendments effectively say that the eligibility of a British Rail bid will be decided at the time of awarding the franchise rather than at the time of invitation for tender. [Interruption.] I am not at all surprised that Opposition Members do not wish to hear the arguments on the amendments; they have never done. That is part of the problem. They do not address the real issues. That is exactly why—[Interruption.]

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair, and I am sure every other hon. Member, is having great difficulty in hearing the Secretary of State. The House must now settle down and get down to the serious debate. Before we do that, I shall take one last point of order from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Winnick: The Minister has referred to the debate in the other place. My point of order is simple and clear. At the moment, we have not had an opportunity to study the arguments by which the other place came to its decision. It

makes a total mockery of the democratic process that we should be debating these matters when we are not in a position to know why their Lordships came to the decision that they did, and I am asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule on that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House was fully aware of the situation when it decided to debate the amendments forthwith. Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. MacGregor: It was made perfectly clear—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy speaker: Order. The House must now settle down and listen to the Secretary of State and any other hon. Member who is called to speak.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that we might be considering Lords amendments this week when he made his business statement. This is a perfectly normal procedure at this stage of the Parliament. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) wants to hear the arguments and what this is about, he should listen, instead of Labour Members making that great noise which shows their hypocrisy and how little they care about the arguments. I shall repeat what the amendment does as I am sure that Labour Members and many of my hon. Friends did not hear because of the noise.
Two of our amendments—the third amendment is closely linked to them—relate to the eligibility of a British Rail bid. Under the amendments, the decision of the franchising director as to whether a British Rail bid should be eligible will be made at the time of awarding the franchise, rather than at the time of the invitation to tender, as we proposed. Last night, we had a lengthy debate on this issue.
I shall briefly explain what the effect of the amendments will be. First, most, if not all, management buy-outs will be totally discouraged from bidding for the franchise. If management buy-outs do not know whether British Rail will be made ineligible until after the invitation to tender and after the whole process, they will feel exactly as we agreed last night—that they are being squeezed out and wholly discouraged, and therefore will not incur the expense and the effort to make the bid in the first place.
Secondly, other bidders whom we talked about last night and whom we wish to see bid will be deterred. Hence it will undermine one of the whole purposes of the franchise system and the bidding process, which is to encourage competition for franchises. It will not help—indeed, it will create chaos and confusion. It will not help with the argument that I raised last night—that the amendment from the other place, which we addressed yesterday, will mean that in each individual franchise, the people who may be framing the British Rail bid will be the ones who also wanted to do a management buy-out. As I spelt out yesterday, that is a recipe for total chaos and confusion. It will also mean that there will be a great deal of unnecessary cost.
Our amendment is preferable because it avoids all the problems; it encourages management buy-outs and other bidders; it encourages competition for the franchises and it avoids the confusion and unworkability. Indeed, what we now face would work out in practice as simply having a


single monopoly supplier of the services again. The Bill is designed to prevent the dominant single supplier in the public sector.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way, because the debate is a short one.
I must make the point that we have debated these issues on many occasions in the House. We debated them for two hours yesterday, although the vast majority of Labour Members were not present to hear the arguments. We have given much more time to these issues and debated them at greater length than did the other place. Fundamentally, this means that we will not get all the changes and benefits of competition that we are seeing in the former nationalised industries.
Yesterday, some of my hon. Friends pointed out that we were debating this Bill at a time when we saw yet another benefit of privatisation with the reduction in British Telecom prices that had just been announced. We would not get that benefit.
As I explained yesterday, our amendment will still enable British Rail to bid in defined circumstances. I do not need to repeat the arguments but that is one of the big changes that we accepted on the original Peyton amendment. Last night, I argued that, for a variety of reasons, it would be unworkable and would not meet our objectives. That will remain the position with the amendment that has come back from the other place.
The third amendment is closely linked to the other two. It has two main effects—it will delete the promotion of competition for franchises from the criteria which the franchising director must take into account, and insert instead a requirement that the transfer of services to the private sector should not significantly increase the costs of the franchising director. [Interruption.] The reaction of Labour Members shows the frivolity with which they approach these matters. It is clear that they do not care and they are not serious.
The amendment has one bad effect and is unnecessary. The bad effect is that it removes the objective of promoting competition for franchises. Since that objective is one of the basic purposes of the reforms that we are undertaking, it cannot be right that we should ask the House to remove it.
The second point is that the amendment argues the case that an award should not significantly increase the cost to the franchising director. That is unnecessary, because the process that we have made clear—the process that is involved in our proposals, which I have talked about on many occasions—means that the franchising director will take into account the costs in any awards that he makes, not least because he will have as his benchmark the historic track record of the existing passenger franchise, the new shadow franchise, when he examines the bids.—[Interruption.]] I am explaining precisely what it is about so that everyone understands. If the franchising director decides that the bids are not viable or competitive, or involve increased costs, he will not award any franchise and it will return to the existing British Rail operation.
In addition, value for money, which the amendment is supposed to be about, is already one of the franchising

director's objectives. So I have explained clearly and precisely that we object to the amendments for the very reasons that, last night, the House passed our amendment by a substantial majority. That is why I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. John Prescott: This controversial Railways Bill, this arrogant Government and this incompetent Secretary of State for Transport have reduced Parliament to a running farce today. It started because the Secretary of State decided to deny this House and the other place the right to debate by introducing a guillotine in the way that he did.
The Government sought a cheap advantage by trying to rush the Bill through the House before proper debate could take place. That is the same charge that we lay against the Lords, who had to discuss Government amendments which were passed only last night and communicated by a reasons committee, of which I am member, which was set up at 2.30 in the Morning. I believe that I am still a member of that committee, which will have to meet again after this debate to tell the other place why we agree or disagree with their amendment. I resign from that committee. I cannot sit on it with any sense of democratic participation in view of the mockery of democracy that has been brought about by the Secretary of State. This is possibly my last appearance as the Opposition spokesman on transport.
Since 1979, there have been 14 Secretaries of State for Transport. I have dealt with three of them, and this Secretary of State is by far the worst. He treats the House with utter contempt. The last three lasted only 18 months, and I believe that this month is this Secretary of State's 18th month. It is about time he went with the others.
The problem that the House faces today arises directly from the amendments and the guillotine procedure with which we were faced yesterday. The guillotine denies us proper and adequate debate on these essential matters. I remind those who attended yesterday's debate of the speech by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) about the guillotine procedure. As he is an ex-Leader of the House, we all listen carefully to what he says. He said:
no House of Commons having even a modest regard for the self-respect of legislators would be presenting them with such an extensive .…. Bill to be dispatched in two days."—[Official Report, 2 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 187.]
9 pm
That is at the heart of the problem that we face today. The problem in the House of Lords is exactly the same. This Government have deployed all the political trickery in the book to seek a political advantage to force down the throats of both Houses a view that they cannot substantiate in debate. They can enforce their view only by means of a guillotine and because of some Members who do not understand what they are doing. That has always characterised this debate. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) described that, properly, as "a constitutional outrage". Any impartial person watching our debates on television might think that that is what is happening.
The argument to be placed against the Government is not only that they are a Government of cheats, but that they treat the House with utter contempt. The dates of our proceedings show that. Monday was a classic example. When the Government tabled a 10 o'clock business motion, it was reasonable to assume that the debate would


be allowed to continue beyond 10 o'clock. The Government tabled that motion to lull the House into a false sense of security, thinking that there would be long enough to debate these matters, only to move a motion at 10 o'clock to close the debate and announce a guillotine. It was all to ensure that the debate would not centre on an examination of the real issues. The same procedures were adopted in the other place when a matter concerning these amendments was discussed, of which we have no record because it took place only hours ago.
The Secretary of State will know that, in the previous guillotined debate, we made great play of the argument of the memorandum of understanding concerning pensioners. The Government signed it prior to the other place voting on pensions, in the belief that the memorandum of understanding meant what the Government said it meant. The Government abrogated their agreement on that, but sought and got the vote in the other place. They got that by trickery. That is what has characterised the whole approach of the Government during these debates.
One of the Lords amendments changes a decision agreed by this House last night. I should remind hon. Members who have not attended our debates on these issues, as the Secretary of State has attempted to, what the issue is about. It is about the right of British Rail to bid for the franchise under the Bill's provisions for the privatisation of British Rail. There were some rebels—perhaps I should not use that word, because they did not materialise. If anybody thought that those amendments meant anything, they would buy anything.
When the Bill was first debated in the House, the Government did not believe that British Rail should have the right to bid for the franchise because, they said, it would blow a hole in the Bill. In other words, they did not want the most competent authority to bid for the facilities. The real intention of the Bill, which is at the heart of these amendments, is to allow the private sector to get its hands on the profitable bits of British Rail at the expense of taxpayers and rail travellers. So the House of Lords considered the matter and then restored British Rail's right to bid.
It is offensive for Ministers to talk about whether the other places gives proper consideration to legislation or whether it has the experience to do so. The two Tory Lords who have been leading the attack on this were both Secretaries of State for Transport in different Tory Governments. One was a chairman of British Rail. I can only assume that they must know what problems face a railway system. Both are Tories, and both have tremendous experience in government and in the management of the railway system. Both take the view that the Government's view is utter nonsense. Lord Peyton described it as "not common sense".
Yesterday, the Government sought to provide a right for British Rail to bid for the franchise, and Back Bencthers agreed. Lord Peyton saw that as a small step forward. It was made clear that the person who was to award! the contract was to ensure that, if a private bidder bid against British Rail, even if his bid cost more, priority must be given to that private bidder, fixing the market, as the Government have done with the coal industry, to ensure that the private sector wins the argument.
The Lords could not accept that; they rejected it. It is a reasonable proposition to reject, and that is precisely what they did. They have told the House that it is utter nonsense. They have now told us that they do not reject it totally.

They welcome the Government's move towards some form of privatisation—something that Opposition Members totally reject—but they have told the Government that, if British Rail is now allowed to bid, it should be allowed to make a bid up to the time of award.
The Lords have also made it clear that they are concerned from our debates that, if a private sector bid comes along that is more costly than the British Rail bid, the taxpayer might get conned. Why does the Secretary of State want an extra £2 billion from the Treasury if it is not plunder to put in the pockets of the private sector to bid?
In Sweden, the national operator has been able to provide a better service, and the franchise director has been able to give it the award. The Secretary of State fears that that will happen here. The Lords amendments before us say, "You will not give the franchise to a private sector bidder if its bid is substantially greater than the British Rail bid." They are even giving a margin of edge to the private sector. They are trying to protect, however, the pockets of the taxpayers. The House of Lords defended the taxpayers when the Government had already given up.
Apparently, Lord Peyton and others do not understand that the purpose of privatisation is to take money out of public funds and put it in the pockets of private industry. That is precisely what it is all about. The Lords have said that they cannot accept that proposition; neither can Members of this House.
The Government say that they stand for employee and management buy-out bids. The real reason is that the 50 private companies that were said to want to bid have not materialised; they have vanished. They have considered the problems and they are scared of what is likely to happen. In desperation, the Government now want to fix it so that a few managers can get into the market and bid against British Rail. That will cause confusion in the British Rail system and conflict in the management, who will divert their energies from running a railway system into making competing bids in the name of privatisation. That is not the way to run a railway system.
The Lords amendment is right. We disagree about the principle of privatisation, but they are trying to limit the damage and protect the interests of the taxpayer. One would have thought that the Secretary of State and Conservative Members would have been worried, but no; they will troop into those Lobbies again today to tell the House of Lords that they totally reject their amendment.
That is the issue. It is a matter of substance. Tonight we are debating the credibility of the Secretary of State, the arrogance of the Government and an affront to democracy. That is why we shall oppose the Government's amendment tonight.

Sir David Mitchell: The Lords amendment is a thinly veiled attempt by Lord Peyton to destroy the Government's rail privatisation measure in its entirety. Successful franchising is an essential part of the Bill. Railtrack will remain in the public sector. All of the system that is not franchised will remain in the public sector. It is on the franchising front only that the private sector becomes involved. Therefore, the benefits of this massive Bill rely on the success of franchising.
Franchising will bring three benefits to the public: first culture, secondly competition and thirdly cash. By "culture", I mean the interjection of the enterprise culture that has been so desperately missing from British Rail's


activities, and the wind of change that that will bring to the whole of the enterprise. By "competition", I mean that there will be astonishment when several bidders fight each other for the minimum amount of subsidy that they require to operate the service. That experience has been offered elsewhere in the transport world and will undoubtedly repeat itself if we are successful in enacting the Bill.
The third benefit is cash to get rid of the Treasury's dead hand and enable those people to go to the markets for money and increase their investment in a way which the Treasury would never permit. Those benefits would be denied if the Lords amendments were accepted and the benefits of franchising were taken away.
Bids for franchises will come from four main sources: management buy-outs; international rail engineering companies; existing transport companies such as P and 0 and Virgin; and City-backed entrepreneurs. None of those would bid if the amendments were accepted, because the amendments would destroy effective bidding by the private sector, which would have to bid against British Rail's unfettered right to bid. Only once that had happened would the franchise director assess the bids and question whether British Rail's bid should be barred.
On that basis, there would be no bids, because there would be no level playing field. Bidders would be scared off by British Rail's financial muscle, the fear of deliberate artificial cross-subsidisation, the knowledge that British Rail would not know whether it was cross-subsidising, and British Rail's access to cheap public money, which would not be available to other franchise bidders.
The amendments would put a tourniquet around the throats of managers considering a bid. None of them would dare to bid against his employer, knowing that afterwards he might lose his job and that his job would be on the line the whole time that he was preparing his bid.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be wary of amendments that have obviously been drafted by British Rail's lawyers for British Rail's benefit and sponsored in the Lords by past British Rail management? I go further and say that it is improper for British Rail to use public money to campaign against a Government programme approved by the electors.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State's speech contained three fatal errors. First, he said that, because we have spent hundreds of hours debating this Bill, we need not debate it any longer. But we have never debated this proposal from the Lords. It has never come before either House until today.
Secondly, the amendment allows the franchising director to rule out absolutely any BR bid unless it is substantially cheaper than private sector bids. What possible objection could there be to that?
Thirdly, he said that there would be a conflict of interests if BR managers put together a management buy-out bid in competition with BR, when BR were also bidding. But a conflict of interests will exist if those managers challenge their company by submitting an alternative bid while remaining in the company. If there is to be a level playing field, private sector firms will have to bid from outside BR. The managers who want to opt out of BR should prepare their bids from outside and leave BR free of interference from outsiders to put together its own bid.
The Government intend to vote down the Lords amendment for just one reason: they are afraid of the competition that BR would bring. They are afraid that, if BR is allowed to bid, it will provide better and cheaper services for the public. They are determined to destroy that possibility by means of their privatisation measure.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The opening speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) slid into personal invective, which is the last resort of anyone without a rational argument on which to rely. If we needed further confirmation of the need for that guillotine motion, which I found unfortunate, the atrocious behaviour of Opposition Members provides it.
We must remind ourselves and the other place that yesterday's House of Commons majority of 34 confirmed the improvement that has been made to the Bill throughout its consideration on the Floor of the House of Commons, in Committee and in reaction to the previous set of Lords amendments.
The other place, however, has clearly misunderstood those changes—perhaps because it did not have time to consider them. I hope that it is considering them now. Certainly it was not given time to debate them, in contrast with the time allowed for discussion of the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues.
The Lords amendment undercuts the whole principle of the level playing field to which numerous speakers on both sides of the House referred in yesterday's debate. It also undercuts true competition between the franchises. Such competition must be in the interests of more efficient rail services, which are more cost-effective for the taxpayer.
9.15 pm
I believe that a misunderstanding existed in all their Lordships' minds when they voted last night. That was confirmed by the comment made by Lord Marsh in a broadcast at 6 o'clock this evening. I heard what he said, and I was not relying on annunciator screens or television sets—I was there when he said it. He said that, under the House of Commons amendment, the SNCF, the German Bundesbahn or any other foreign railway could bid for a franchise while British Rail could not, but that is not true. The whole point of the amendments that we discussed yesterday was that British Rail would be allowed to bid, except—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Rathbone: No, I will not give way. I hope that other hon. Members will have a chance to speak later.
British Rail will have a chance to bid, except when the franchising director believes that that is not in the interest of competition. That is the measure that we passed yesterday, and that is what went down the Corridor earlier today.
I believe that Ministers and the House considered the so-called Peyton amendments, as their Lordships wanted them to do. They concluded that those amendments themselves required amendment, made the necessary changes, and passed them back to their Lordships for consideration. I believe that we should pass them back yet again in a few moments' time.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The Government face this problem for the first time in 16 years entirely because of their own incompetence and obstinacy. Their handling of the Bill has been deplorable throughout its


passage. They have tabled so many amendments to their own amendments—tabling them in Committee when the ink was hardly wet on the first lot—that they have almost used up an entire Amazonian rain forest.
There was a time when I believed that, however misguided and inherently evil Conservative Members might be, they at least understood how to run things, and were technically competent. I have come to realise that I completely misjudged them. They stand before the country exposed as the shambolic rabble that they undoubtedly are.
When the public learn of this evening's events, and the passage of this measure from one end of the corridor to the other, they will be in no doubt about who is speaking for the nation. Members of the other place come in without deferring to the Whips, and with no hope of promotion; they do not even need gongs, because most already have them. We have been reduced to observing the spectacle of those people speaking for the nation, not those who speak in this Chamber—the men of straw on the Conservative Benches who depend on the Whips for their prospects of promotion and patronage.
That is the position to which we have been reduced by the Government's shambolic conduct and a ridiculous measure which successive Secretaries of State for Transport have thought better than to introduce. The present Secretary of State, however, has insisted on pushing it through, at a deplorable cost to democracy and to his own electoral fortune. The Government will pay for that at the ballot box.

Mr. Brian Wilson: ninghame, North): I must make one small correction before I proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I received the news of the Government's defeat; this afternoon, and I raised a point of order with Madam Speaker on the fact that the defeat had been on the pensions issue. Sadly, the defeat was not on the pensions issue, but on the franchise issue. I apologise for the fact that I inadvertently misled Madam Speaker this afternoon. That was the first time in the process of the Bill that I had a wrong piece of information. I think the whole of the British press were surprised when [said that the Government had been defeated on pensions rather than the franchises.
It was a glorious victory, however, which has thrown the Bill into total chaos and confusion and led to tonight's debate. It is the Secretary of State who has created the chaos and confusion—

Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: Certainly not. When the hon. Gentleman has the guts to vote for the pensioners in the Eastleigh works, I will give way to him.
Today's events represent the final humiliation for the Bill and for the Secretary of State and confirmation of the reality that there is no majority for the Bill in the country, where polls have revealed that opposition to it stands at 83 per cent. There is no majority for the Bill in the leader columns of the Tory press or in Tory local authorities—even though there are not many of those left—and there is no majority for it among British Rail managers, 90 per cent. of whom have expressed their opposition to it, contrary to the misrepresentation by the Secretary of State.
What we have seen tonight has been a constitutional outrage—I do not know the terminology used on these occasions—and a performance typical and worthy of the Government. Not only has the House and its right to debate

been trampled on; at the same time, the right to debate and consider legislation along the Corridor have been trampled on here. Some hon. Members who have been here for 30 years say that they have never seen anything like it; I have heard some Lords say that they have been in the other place for 70 years and never seen anything like it.
The Secretary of State again adduces the interests of railway managers. He insists that they want to run private railways, in spite of the arguments, the statistics and the evidence of a lack of positive support for that. One of the greatest wrongs committed by the Secretary of State is to misrepresent the railway managers. He is driving them into a position of becoming involved in buy-out bids, forcing them into taking out mortgages on their homes to take financial risks. He does not even have the guts to admit that he is doing that for political reasons. He is persistently taking in vain the names of people who, by statute and regulation, he forbids to answer back.
In the weeks ahead, I challenge the Secretary of State to tell the chairman of British Rail that all rail managers are to be free to speak openly about their views on this legislation and the appropriateness of management buy-outs. He will find that the 90 per cent. who have told the survey that they are opposed to rail privatisation will come to the fore. It is a disgrace to drive people into management buy-outs as a way of protecting their employment, and then to persist in the falsehood that the majority are anxious to do that.
There are many Tory voters among the railway managers, but the Opposition will continue to speak for the 90 per cent. of them who do not want anything to do with these buy-outs. The Government can speak for the 10 per cent. who do. We shall speak for the 90 per cent. of railway managers who want to continue to run a safe, integrated public railway—many of whom are to be denied the right to do so.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) seemed, in his attempt to rationalise his own behaviour, under a serious misapprehension about what is in the Bill. Let there be no doubt: the state railways of Germany, France, Ireland and other countries will be in a position superior to that of British Rail if they choose to bid for BR franchises. None of those state railways will be subject to the four conditions that can be used by the franchise director to preclude British Rail involvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] I repeat that none of them will be subject to the conditions that can be used under the Secretary of State's direction to preclude BR's involvement.
There is a genuine question of competition at stake. No longer can Tory Ministers make up the rules as they go along. At some point they must answer to the laws of competition within a European context. One of the fixes in which the Government are engaging to try to encourage what remnant of private interest there may be is thus in contravention of European law—

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the matter any better than the Lords do. The Bill will say that British Rail can enter into these franchises; it is only when there is no competition that the franchise director steps in.

Mr. Wilson: I think that Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh, not to mention hon. Members here who understand the


Bill, have nothing to gain and nothing to hide—unlike those who engaged in a rebellion that collapsed before extracting a price.
The new Lords amendment offered the genuine compromise which the hon. Member for Lewes and others like him failed to obtain. I do not like the amendment, in the sense that British Rail could still be the lowest bidder but be excluded from a franchise by the director. At least that represented a major advance, however, in that British Rail would have a right to bid in every instance. Under what the Government continue to propose, BR will often be excluded—not because it is not good enough, but because Ministers know that if it is allowed to bid it will succeed.
The arguments will go on outside this House. The Government have lost the argument. They have lost their dignity and their credibility on this Bill. Today we read of the latest attempt to win over public support for the Bill. We are told that the Department of Transport plans to send a leaflet to every house in the country explaining the benefits of rail privatisation. Millions of pounds that could be used to run trains will be spent on a propaganda battle that the Government have already lost. The only result could be another threat to rail traffic: leaflets on the track.
The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) spoke of a tourniquet around the throats of railway managers who want to bid. I have always understood that the purpose of a tourniquet is to stop bleeding and save lives. Rather, this is a knife in the back of British Rail, and the Government have placed it there tonight.
The debate goes on. It is understood in the country that rail privatisation equals higher fares, fewer services, and the loss of routes, of network benefits and of everything about the railway system that is widely understood in this country. The has-beens and never-weres on the Tory Benches can vote for the Government tonight and overturn the Lords amendment, but they will have to live with the consequences of their actions. Those consequences will be seen next year in the local government and European elections—and ultimately in the general election campaign, in which the future of the railways will play a major part.
Conservative Members can vote down the Lords amendment, but they cannot defeat the arguments. They have lost those arguments in the House. In the country, rail privatisation is discredited. This is the last hurrah for the Railways Bill. The battle goes on in the country from now on.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am happy to live with the consequences of the Railways Act, as it will become. I firmly believe, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that it will improve the quality of rail services, and that is the object of the exercise. Interestingly enough, tonight we have heard no reference whatsoever to passengers.
The purpose of the Bill is to improve the quality of service to passengers. It is not about preserving monopolies or preserving the rights of trade unions; it is about improving service to passengers.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to a matter that was raised in another place. Let me deal with it now. There is no question of

printing 20 million leaflets to distribute to every household in the country. Hon. Members should not believe what they read in The Guardian; there are no such plans.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said that we cannot substantiate in debate our arguments. Not only have we had 190 hours of debate, but we have dealt with the issues at great length. We spent two and a half hours on amendment No. 31 and we won by a majority of 34. We debated specific issues concerning the responsibility of the franchising director. [Interruption.] Yes, we did. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) was not listening to the debate.
9.30 pm
We discussed when the franchising director would exercise his responsibilities under clause 22 in order to disqualify British Rail from bidding in certain circumstances.
I speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a serious point.
In the Bill that we are considering tonight and when it receives Royal Assent, British Rail will be able to bid. My right hon. Friend and I firmly believe that British Rail—

Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: No. I was given only seven minutes and I must make my points.
British Rail will be allowed to bid in certain circumstances and it will undoubtedly win franchises. That was the intention of the House of Lords. We responded constructively and my right hon. Friend and I believe that that will happen.
Clause 22 gives the franchising director, at his own discretion, the right to determine, at the time of issuing the invitation to bid, whether British Rail is to be allowed to be one of those bidders.
The criteria for deciding whether British Rail should bid are clear. The franchising director has to decide whether allowing British Rail to bid would not promote the interests of management-employee buy-out bids that might confound new entry to the railway industry and would not in any way reduce the dominance of one supplier to the railway industry. That is what clause 22 said.
The Lords amendment that deletes "issue invitations to tender" and inserts "award a franchise" is wrong. We debated it at great length and there are two consequences that I believe the House will understand when it votes in a few minutes' time and use as reasons for rejecting the Lords amendments.
First, if the franchising director is allowed to determine that British Rail should not be a bidder at the time of awarding the franchise, that puts British Rail management in a hopeless position. Are they preparing a bid themselves —a management and employee buy-out bid—or are they preparing a bid for British Rail corporate? It is a hopeless position and the direct consequence of the Lords amendments would be to prevent management-employee bids either being prepared or bidding.

Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: No. Let me deal with the second consequence of the Lords amendments which we reject.

Mr. Derek Enright: Get on to the passengers.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not refer to passengers at all. [Interruption.] No, he did not. We are motivated by one clear aim—to improve the quality of service for the passengers.
The second reason why we must reject the Lords amendments is that, if the franchising director allows British Rail to prepare bids in all circumstances and then decides to disqualify it at the time of awarding the franchise—[Interruption.] I am speaking from the heart and the head also.
If we allow the franchising director to disqualify British Rail only at the final moment, at the award of the franchise, that would put off private sector bidders. They would undoubtedly be deterred by the cost and expense of preparing a bid, because they would face a state-owned company that is at present a monopoly. The net effect of the Lords amendment would be to deny the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to encourage and promote private sector interest in running passenger railways. That is what is in the Bill, and it is the prime purpose of our reforms—to introduce the benefits of additional capital and innovation.
The Opposition's real motivation tonight is nothing to do with the amendment; they are determined to preserve British Rail's monopoly. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East threatened to sack British Rail managers who participated in the bidding process, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that he would renationalise the rail industry. The Opposition are determined to do one thing, and the one thing alone—to preserve British Rail's monopoly. But we are interested in promoting the interests of passengers. I commend what my right hon. Friend said, and urge the House to reject the Lords amendment.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There appears to be some delay in the Lobby. Will the Serjeant at Arms please investigate?

Mr. Bob Dunn: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If this practice of delay in the No Lobby continues, can those responsible be named?

The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 260.

Division No. 395]
[9.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Beggs, Roy


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, Andrew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bowis, John





Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Jeremy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, lan (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, lain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martand, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick






Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Milligan, Stephen
Spink, Dr Robert


Mills, lain
Spring, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, lain


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moate, Sir Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thomason, Roy


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pickles, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trend, Michael


Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr lan


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robathan, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Ward, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Watts, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whitney, Ray


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whittingdale, John


Sackville, Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. James Arbuthnot


Spencer, Sir Derek



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, Andrew F.


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Allen, Graham
Betts, Clive


Alton, David
Blair, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Byers, Stephen


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cann, Jamie





Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jowell, Tessa


Corston, Ms Jean
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Bob
Keen, Alan


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dafis, Cynog
Kirkwood, Archy


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davidson, lan
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Denham, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McCrea, Rev William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McFall, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, Bill
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McMaster, Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McNamara, Kevin


Faulds, Andrew
McWilliam, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fisher, Mark
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fyfe, Maria
Martlew, Eric


Galloway, George
Maxton, John


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gould, Bryan
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Moriey, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Hara, Edward


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Olner, William


Henderson, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Paisley, Rev lan


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John






Primarolo, Dawn
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Purchase, Ken
Steinberg, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stevenson, George


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Randall, Stuart
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Raynsford, Nick
Straw, Jack


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Turner, Dennis


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tyler, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Wallace, James


Rooker, Jeff
Walley, Joan


Rooney, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Andrew


Salmond, Alex
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Brian


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Clare
Wise, Audrey


Simpson, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Alan Meale and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John Spellar

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment to a Commons amendment in Lieu of a Lords amendment: 1B, in subsection (4) line 6, leave out from ("for") to end of subsection and insert ("selection as the franchisee.").

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 261.

Division No. 396]
[9.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Jonathan
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, lan (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cormack, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowden, Andrew
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dicks, Terry


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den





Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, lain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon lan


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Milligan, Stephen


Hague, William
Mills, lain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Ottaway, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Page, Richard


Horam, John
Paice, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pickles, Eric


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)






Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thomason, Roy


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trend, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr lan


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, lain
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wilshire, David


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, lan (Esher)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. James Arbuthnot


Temple-Morris, Peter



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Alton, David
Clelland, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Coffey, Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Austin-Walker, John
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Ms Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Bayley, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Dafis, Cynog


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davidson, lan


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Ms Angela


Byers, Stephen
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Eggar, Tim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)





Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gould, Bryan
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Hara, Edward


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Olner, William


Henderson, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Paisley, Rev lan


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Rendel, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooker, Jeff


Jowell, Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ruddock, Joan


Khabra, Piara S.
Salmond, Alex


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Simpson, Alan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCrea, Rev William
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McKelvey, William
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stevenson, George


Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


McMaster, Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Tipping, Paddy






Tyler, Paul
Wilson, Brain


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Wise, Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Garelh (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony


Watson, Mike
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Andrew



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question pur, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has been reported to me that the wrong teller is in the Aye Lobby. This Division is off. I will put the Question again.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House proceeded to a division—

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will have come to your attention that, during the course of this evening's debate, a number of hon. Members have been using delaying tactics in both the Lobbies. Indeed, you called the Serjeant at Arms to clear the Lobbies so that we could get on with the business of the House. Have you invited the Seijeant at Arms to note who those hon. Members are?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I have not.

Mr. Brandreth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you have not considered doing so, and as the disruption is continuing, will you consider that possibility, because it is a little obstructive when we wish to proceed with the business before us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Ernie Ross: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am extremely concerned. I am not sure whether I have been shunted into a siding, or whether I am still on the track. What happened in the last Division? Did a Conservative Member attempt to act as a Teller and vote at the same time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are still on the track, and I am sure that he will eventually find out what happened.

Mr. James Paice: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that, yet again, the Aye Lobby—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with points of order unless I can hear them.

Mr. Paice: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Aye Lobby is empty yet again; yet proceedings in the No Lobby are again being delayed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave the matter in my hands.

Mr. Mark Robinson: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There still seems to be a blockage in the No Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware of the situation. Later—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There seems to be some delay in the No Lobby. I will send the Serjeant at Arms to investigate.

The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 258.

Division No. 397]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dicks, Terry


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Duncan-Smith, lain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Beggs, Roy
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, lan (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Horam, John


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)






Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Mon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, Sir David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon lan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, lain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, lain
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr lan


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Waterson, Nigel


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Willetts, David


Pawsey, James
Wilshire, David


Peacock. Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainger, Nick
Eastham, Ken


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Ashton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Bayley, Hugh
Gapes, Mike


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Garrett, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gerrard, Neil


Bell, Stuart
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Berry, Dr. Roger
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gunnell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hanson, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harvey, Nick


Burden, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoey, Kate


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dafis, Cynog
Keen, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davidson, lan
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ron


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dobson, Frank
Llwyd, Elfyn


Donohoe, Brian H.
Loyden, Eddie


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John






McAvoy, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


McCrea, Rev William
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Macdonald, Calum
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


McFall, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


McKelvey, William
Mowlam, Marjorie


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mudie, George


McLeish, Henry
Mullin, Chris


Maclennan, Robert
Murphy, Paul


McMaster, Gordon
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


McNamara, Kevin
O'Hara, Edward


McWilliam, John
Olner, William


Madden, Max
O'Neill, Martin


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Mandelson, Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Marek, Dr John
Parry, Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Patchett, Terry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Pendry, Tom


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Pickthall, Colin


Martlew, Eric
Pike, Peter L.


Maxton, John
Pope, Greg


Meacher, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Meale, Alan
Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lew'm E)


Michael, Alun
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Prescott, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Primarolo, Dawn


Milburn, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Miller, Andrew
Quin, Ms Joyce


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Radice, Giles


Morgan, Rhodri
Randall, Stuart





Raynsford, Nick
Stott, Roger


Reid, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Rendel, David
Straw, Jack


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Tyler, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wallace, James


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Joan


Ruddock, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Welsh, Andrew


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, Jimmy


Snape, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Stevenson, George
Mr. John Spellar

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments to the amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu of amendment No. 31; that Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Roger Freeman, Mr. Secretary MacGregor and Mr. Brian Wilson be the members of the Committee; that three be the quorum; that the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
put forthwith pursuant to Order [2 November]:—
The House proceeded to a Division—

Madam Speaker: Serjeant, would you inspect the No Lobby? I understand that there is a blockage there, and I want it removed immediately.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the headgear, but I understand—

Madam Speaker: Order. When I am in the Chair, the hon. Gentleman must wear a hat. He will look far more handsome.

Mr. Marshall: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that there are now blockages in both Lobbies.

Madam Speaker: That makes it even, then. Will the Serjeant at Arms inspect the Aye Lobby?

Mr. Alun Michael: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier tonight the question was asked why the bells did not ring when an earlier Division was called. It appears that the Serjeant at Arms is able to go into the Lobbies to ask Members to come out, but not to sort out why the bells did not ring or say whether they will ring on future occasions. Is it not appropriate that the Serjeant at Arms should be able to tell us that the bells will ring when they should so that everyone is aware when the Division is called?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not trouble himself, because I intend to find out tomorrow whether the bells rang or not.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to make the point that yesterday I was accused of constitutional outrage for moving a timetable motion on this Bill. It should be registered that what we are experiencing tonight is a constitutional outrage—[Interruption]—and I hope that you will decide to have the matter thoroughly investigated.

Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, I am always prepared to defend this House nationally and internationally when it is robust and when it has quality debate and quality argument. I cannot defend it when it is in a state of disorder.

The House having divided: Ayes 315, Noes 244.

Division No. 398]
[10.42


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkins, Robert


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alton, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)





Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beggs, Roy
French, Douglas


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gallie, Phil


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garnier, Edward


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Booth, Hartley
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Conway, Derek
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, lain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lord, Michael






Luff, Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


MacKay, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David
Shersby, Michael


Maclennan, Robert
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, lain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sweeney, Walter


Milligan, Stephen
Sykes, John


Mills, lain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Tyler, Paul


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Wallace, James


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Rendel, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela



Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. James Arbuthnot


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene
Austin-Walker, John


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Battle, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Hilary
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret





Bell, Stuart
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gunnell, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hain, Peter


Benton, Joe
Hall, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Hanson, David


Berry, Dr. Roger
Harman, Ms Harriet


Betts, Clive
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blair, Tony
Henderson, Doug


Blunkett, David
Heppell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bradley, Keith
Hinchliffe, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hood, Jimmy


Burden, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbett, Robin
Jowell, Tessa


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corston, Ms Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cox, Tom
Khabra, Piara S.


Cryer, Bob
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Livingstone, Ken


Dafis, Cynog
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Darling, Alistair
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davidson, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McCrea, Rev William


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McFall, John


Dixon, Don
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mandelson, Peter


Enright, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maxton, John


Fisher, Mark
Meacher, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Galloway, George
Miller, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Garrett, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Gerrard, Neil
Morley, Elliot


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gordon, Mildred
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul






O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Simpson, Alan


O'Hara, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


Olner, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Snape, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L.
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pope, Greg
Steinberg, Gerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Reid, Dr John
Watson, Mike


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Welsh, Andrew


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Short, Clare
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Beverages (VAT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Value Added Tax (Beverages) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2498), which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]

Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is rather important that hon. Members should appreciate this. I submit that it is not in order for the House to consider this VAT order because the appropriate papers are not in legible form and are not available to hon. Members.
The order was considered only yesterday by a Standing Committee and it appears to be designed to apply VAT at 17.5 per cent. to fresh orange juice. That would increase the price of a litre bottle of this important national food by—

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter and I am prepared to listen to a point of order, but not to an argument. The motion is not debatable. If the hon. Gentleman puts a point of order to me, I will deal with it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I was simply pointing out that the order is rather important.
The order is not printed in the normal form. It appears to have been typed and photocopied. At the foot of the explanatory note, there is a reference to a paragraph of schedule 6 of a Finance Act the date of which cannot be deciphered. Another document is referred to as 1988/507, but its title is also illegible. The date of the order cannot be read, apart from the fact that it is 1993.
I understand that matters can be considered by the House only if the appropriate papers are provided to hon. Members. I suggest that we cannot consider the VAT order when the appropriate papers cannot be read in some parts and when the references cannot be read. I supplied your office with a copy of the order and I suggest that it is not in accordance with the proceedings of the House if hon. Members are asked to vote on a document that cannot be read properly.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made the point himself. The document was considered yesterday by a Statutory Instruments Committee. I realise that it is a bit fingerprinted and mucky, but the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee members could understand it. If the hon. Gentleman really tried hard, I am sure that he could manage to read it.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Simon Hughes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, there is a vote in progress and, as you also know, behind you the Committee is drawing up the reasons for our disagreement to send to the other place. Apparently, the members of that Committee are not being allowed out to vote in this Division and, apparently, there is coming and going and toing and froing of people not on the Committee who are requesting the attendance of the Clerk of the House and, therefore, I assume, interfering with that Committee's right to make its decisions. All that I am seeking is a ruling that, if any member of the Committee should want to vote, the Committee should adjourn to


allow them to do so, and, secondly, that the Committee be allowed to carry on its business without interference from other hon. Members or Officers of the House.

Madam Speaker: I do not interfere in the affairs of the Committee, but I am very surprised that any Member should be attempting to enter the room in which the Committee is deliberating. Far be it from me to try to enter that room. I hope that if any Members try to get in there they will be turned out.

The House having divided: Ayes 292, Noes 247.

Division No. 399]
[11.08 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Aitken, Jonathan
Devlin, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Robert
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evennett, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Faber, David


Bates, Michael
Fabricant, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bellingham, Henry
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, Dudley


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayes, Jerry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heald, Oliver


Cormack, Patrick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Couchman, James
Hendry, Charles


Cran, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hicks, Robert


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Horam, John





Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, lain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Major, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Milligan, Stephen
Tredinnick, David


Mills, lain
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Needham, Richard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Oppenheim, Phillip
Whittingdale, John


Ottaway, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Paice, James
Willetts, David






Wilshire, David



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainger, Nick
Eastham, Ken


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Ashton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Bayley, Hugh
Gapes, Mike


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Garrett, John


Beggs, Roy
Gerrard, Neil


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gordon, Mildred


Benton, Joe
Graham, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gunnell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hanson, David


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Burden, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Heppell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoey, Kate


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cox, Tom
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jowell, Tessa


Dafis, Cynog
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Keen, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Denham, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lynne, Ms Liz





McAllion, John
Reid, Dr John


McAvoy, Thomas
Rendel, David


McCrea, Rev William
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Macdonald, Calum
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McFall, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McKelvey, William
Rogers, Allan


McLeish, Henry
Rooker, Jeff


McMaster, Gordon
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Spellar, John


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Mudie, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Murphy, Paul
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tyler, Paul


O'Hara, Edward
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Olner, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Andrew


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pope, Greg
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wray, Jimmy


Prescott, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Noes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the previous Division, three Clerks were in the Aye Lobby, two recording the vote and one whose presence in the Lobby was not explained. I have raised the matter with the Clerk at the Table and the Clerk of the House, but I have been given no explanation of why the third Clerk should have been present in the Aye Lobby during a Division. The presence of a third Clerk, or anyone who should not have been in that Lobby, giving advice or whatever, tends to negate the value of that Division.

Madam Speaker: Of course the Division is not negated. I will make inquiries to find out precisely what took place.

Members' Salaries

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) In respect of service in 1994—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.

(2) In respect of service in 1995—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.

(3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(4) For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;
(b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972; and
(c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.

Madam Speaker: I have to tell the House that all the amendments on the Order Paper may be referred to in the debate, but I have selected only amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Mr. Newton: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss the other two motions on the Order Paper:
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) In respect of service in 1994—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.

(2) In respect of service in 1995—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.

(3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(4) For the purposes of this Resolution—


(a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;
(b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972; and
(c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.

That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.
I should first remind the House briefly of the background from our debate just under a year ago, on 25 November 1992, when the House agreed that there should be no pay increase for Members of Parliament in January 1993.
In that debate, I gave two clear undertakings, which were, I think, of importance to Members in coming to their decision at that time. The first was that the Government accepted the case for an automatic linkage with the civil service and would seek to re-establish it once the revised structure of civil service pay had been settled. The second was that the Government did not intend that Members should be permanently disadvantaged by the loss of the 3.9 per cent. awarded to civil servants in August 1992, which Members could in normal circumstances have expected to receive in January 1993.
In framing the proposals that I am putting to the House today, I have sought to fulfil those commitments, while at the same time imposing a significant constraint on the pay of Members, in line with the Government's approach to public sector pay. Thus, the realignment of Members' pay will take place over a period of two years, with the settlement for 1995 bringing Members in line with the civil servants with whom they were formerly linked.
The purpose of the motions is to honour the undertakings given, but to do so in a way which not only acknowledges the continued need for restraint. In fact—this is a point to which I shall return—taking the period from the end of 1992 to the beginning of 1995 as a whole, the motions ask Members to accept greater, not less, restraint than has been asked of civil servants and, indeed, others in the public sector.
Before returning to that point, let me outline the provisions of the motions. The first two deal with the pay of Members, including the reduced parliamentary pay of those who also receive a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. That latter category covers not only all Ministers but the Leader of the Opposition; the Opposition Chief Whip; the Opposition Deupty Chief Whip; you, Madam Speaker; my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who, as a former Prime Minister, is in receipt of a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972; the Chairman of Ways and Means; and the two Deputy Speakers.
The motions provide that, in January 1994, the full parliamentary salary should be increased from £30,854 to £31,687, and the reduced parliamentary salary from £23,227 to £23,854, both representing an increase of 2·7 per cent. They further propose that, in January 1995, the full parliamentary salary should be increased to £32,538,


and the reduced parliamentary salary to £24,495—in both cases an increase of 2·68 per cent. on the 1994 salary—together with an amount reflecting the pay settlement for civil service grades 5 to 7 in the forthcoming year. Thus, automatic linkage with civil service pay increases would be re-established in January 1995, after a two-year break. The same automatic linkage would then apply in each year thereafter, without the need for further resolution of the House.
The third motion concerns the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order which is also before the House. This applies the same percentage increase in salary in 1994 as for Members, except that Ministers in the other place who are not in receipt of a parliamentary salary would receive an increase in salary equivalent in cash terms to the increase experienced by their counterparts in this House.
The order relating to Ministers can, under the terms of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, deal only with 1994. However, I should make it clear to the House that the Government think that the right course henceforth is for the salaries of Ministers and the others whom I mentioned earlier to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as Members—that is to say, in effect linked to the percentage increases in the average salaries of civil service grades 5 to 7.
Before coming back to what Members will no doubt see as the main issue, I should perhaps explain in a little more detail the reasons for proposing this new form of linkage, the basis of it, and the way in which it is expected to operate.
As I said last year, the need for a new resolution arises from the move to performance-related pay in the civil service, which had the effect of making the previously established linkage—89 per cent. of the national scale maximum for grade 6 civil servants—no longer a reliable one.
That is because, whereas in the past a settlement of a certain percentage for grades 5 to 7 was applied evenly to all points on the salary scale, so that the top, middle and bottom of the scale progressed in the same proportions, under the new arrangements different points of the new pay range can move at different rates. In the current year, for example, the 1·5 per cent. award has been applied so that the bottom of the scale remains static while the maximum payable will increase by 8 per cent. In later years, a quite different pattern could occur. So linkage to a notional point on the range in the new system could produce uplifts markedly higher or lower than the overall award, which, in their effects on Members of Parliament, would be virtually arbitrary.
Some confusion has been caused by the current pay arrangements for grades 5 to 7 still showing the old scale maximum, and some Members have suggested to me that this could continue to be used. However, this point on the scale is being used only as part of the assimilation arrangements in respect of some reserved rights under the old system, will continue only for a short period and is therefore of no value for the permanent purpose which Members of Parliament wish to see restored.
What the Government are therefore proposing is a measure that would not link Members to a specific point, but would ensure that Members' pay progressed in line with the average settlement for grades 5 to 7. The linkage

would be with the average increase in pay experienced by grades 5 to 7 as a result of their pay settlement, and is the closest equivalent to the old linkage available under the new system.
Thus, as part of the return to parity with civil servants in January 1995, and in each January thereafter, Members will receive a pay award worth the same as that received the previous August by grades 5 to 7 under their pay agreement. Members will note from the resolution that they would also receive any element of staging awarded during the year. The cost of the grades 5 to 7 award, expressed as a percentage of the total pay bill, will be issued in a letter to civil service establishment officers soon after the settlement, and the same percentage would be used to uprate Members' pay. In other words, we shall then have a link which covers a broader range of civil service grades, which is durable and which can be used for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: That being so, will the Leader of the House take a few minutes to explain why there should be a linkage mechanism or formula that applies to Members of this House which is superior to any other pay formula affecting anyone in the public service? As everybody knows, there is one group of workers who have such a specific, dedicated fomula and it was to be overturned—the firefighters. Although that did not happen, there was such a specific formula. Why should the linkage for our salaries be superior to any other linkage operating in the public sector? Could he also say—[Interruption.] No, I will not ask my other question.

Mr. Newton: I do not fully understand how the hon. Gentleman can make that point when the basic proposition is that, far from being superior to what is proposed for other parts of the public sector, the whole point is to ensure that our salaries are specifically and directly linked to what happens across three grades of the Civil Service on average. That is clear, and cannot be presented as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the Leader of the House for intervening, but can a message be sent to the Reasons Committee to say that they need not hurry as their Lordships have risen for the day?

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Newton: I now return, as I said earlier that I would, to what the figures that we are proposing to ask of Members, bearing in mind the crucial fact that, unlike any other group in the public sector, they have had no pay increase whatever since January 1992, and that the proper comparisons are with what has happened elsewhere over a period of not one year but two.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the Leader of the House goes further, what consideration has he given to the widely reported cases of Members, mainly those behind him, who double or treble their salaries through consultancies and directorships, solely on the basis of being a Member of this House? Is it not time that all Members had one full-time job—that of being a Member of Parliament? Members should be expected to live on that salary and no other, in the interests of democracy and public decency.

Mr. Newton: The subject which the hon. Gentleman raises is touched on in one of the amendments which you, Madam Speaker, said could be discussed during the debate, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless seek to make a speech if he catches your eye. I do not intend to let my speech be diverted from what I consider are the main issues to the sort of point which he has raised.
Although we do not yet know the precise increase in the retail price index in the period from January 1992 to next January when the 2·7 per cent. increase proposed in the motion would take effect, we know that it is already 4.6 per cent. higher in September than when Members' present pay was set. So it is simply not true to say that the increase exceeds inflation in the relevant period. It is significantly less.
The key points are, first, that Members received no pay increase in 1993, and that their current salary is based on an award made to grade 6 civil servants as long ago as August 1991. Secondly, civil servants have over the same period received two settlements totalling 5·45 per cent. —3·9 per cent in August 1992 and 1·5 per cent. under pay restraint in August 1993. Thirdly, the 2·7 per cent. now proposed for January 1994 is only half that amount. Indeed, under these proposals Members will not receive the remainder of the increase that civil servants received in 1992 until January 1995. Fourthly, when parity is finally restored in January 1995, Members will have experienced exactly the same overall restraint over the two years 1993 and 1994. They will have reached exactly the same point of increase as civil servants—no more and no less.
However, because the increases received by Members will have lagged significantly behind their civil service comparators during that period, they will have lost permanently—I need to put this uncomfortable fact to the House—some £2,000 each, compared to what they would have received had normal arrangements applied, and compared to what their civil service comparators actually received.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: I am bringing my speech to a conclusion, and many hon. Members will wish to contribute to the debate.
We are asking not for less constraint but for more. Our proposals are a fair and balanced compromise between the commitments given to Members last year, the undoubted need for continuing pay restraint, and the desirability of re-establishing a clear and sustainable mechanism for determining Members' pay in the future. I commend them to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: As all hon. Members know, this is an issue for the House as a whole, and one on which there will be a free vote. It is for each hon. Member to make his or her own decision. I shall be as brief as I can, in order to allow those who wish to speak to do so.
As the Leader of the House properly pointed out, last year the Government announced a public-sector pay freeze which was opposed by many Opposition Members—especially because some of the most highly paid public servants were not being affected in the same way. We also

expressed concern about the breaking of the existing link with civil service pay, for which the House had voted repeatedly.
I welcome—on behalf, I think, of many hon. Members on both sides of the House—the announcement that some form of linkage will be restored. Whatever the problems with the present system, I cannot think that it is not superior to the previous system, under which hon. Members were required to make an inevitably somewhat arbitrary decision every year.
I admit to some nervousness about having to accept that the Government have changed the form of the link in case the result of the previous formula proved unacceptable; but that is simply to put down a marker for a precedent that might be being set. It would negate the purpose of the link if we all accepted that, every time the result did not suit the Government, they could change the link. In no sense am I arguing for the award of a larger sum than that contained in the settlement; however, I think it right to touch briefly on what was said by the Leader of the House, and to allude to what are, after all, the facts.
The pay of Members of Parliament has been frozen for two years. It has not increased since the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992. As the Leader of the House pointed out, over that period inflation had risen by 5·4 per cent. The Government's proposal is for half that inflation rate to be recognised this year, and for the other half to be recognised in January 1995. That is not, as most commentators seem to have suggested, an increase above the rate of inflation; it is—properly, in the circumstances—below that rate.
Every hon. Member knows that there is never a good time to increase the pay of Members of Parliament by so much as a ha'penny, regardless of the rate of inflation or the circumstances of the rest of the community. Those in the news media, who earn far more than any of us, will be loud in their condemnation; in fairness, so will many members of the general public who do not earn as much. Most people, however, rightly expect their Members of Parliament to work full time in the interests of their constituents: they expect them to do a proper job, and I believe that most expect them to receive a proper rate of pay.
I am a trade unionist, and I believe in a fair rate for the job. I do not abandon that principle solely for Members of Parliament or other public servants—especially because I am aware that many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, myself included, are forced to subsidise their office and other costs to maintain any semblance of a fair rate of pay for their staff.
That leads me to another point—one that I always feel should be made in these debates. I believe that a fair rate for the job should be paid irrespective of a person's other circumstances. I have always believed, however, that each hon. Member—free as he is both to speak and, in particular, to vote as he chooses—also has a degree of proper responsibility to his colleagues. For that reason, I have always exercised my freedom to comment on hon. Members' pay awards with some reticence.
When I was first elected, I was a single woman without family responsibilities. Within three months, I was drawing a junior Minister's salary. That made me very conscious, when issues of Members' pay arose, that I was not facing the financial pressures faced by many of my colleagues—particularly sole earners, often with family responsibilities, and those who, unlike me, had had to establish a fresh London base. I was working in London at


the time. That has always made me very sensitive to the problems that other hon. Members in less favourable financial circumstances might be facing, and very unwilling to add my voice to the condemnation of those who think that this is a fair rate for the job.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: What is the worth of a Member of Parliament is a very difficult question. The salary that we are currently proposing to alter is attached to an arbitrary percentage of the pay of a grade in the civil service which no longer exists. It is the grade that I was on 27 years ago—scarcely the progress of a greedy man.
It is difficult to determine the amount that any one of us should earn, because as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said, some of us have young families, others have children who have left home, while some lucky ones have children who earn a living. It is therefore very difficult for any individual Member to comment on the pay that should be paid to others.
How should the public value us? What do they see? They see a number of supposedly grown-up people shuffling through the Lobbies not just once or twice but five or six times in succession, almost entirely careless and ignorant of the detail of what we are voting about. Among our number in the Lobby is almost every senior Minister, no matter how delicate the negotiations in which they are involved, nor how far they may have travelled that day or are about to travel across the world. Many members of the public wonder how well equipped our Ministers can possibly be to take on Jacques Delors, Gerry Adams or Saddam Hussein when they are faced with such a working schedule.
This Parliament of ours, of whose history we are so rightly proud, is dying on its feet in many respects. It is true that sometimes we have a moment of glory, or at least of undeniable idiosyncrasy, such as the interminable debates on the Maastricht treaty, which at least covered a number of the matters under debate. Those moments, however, are not typical.
We claim that we are here to control the Executive, but that claim is difficult to sustain when that Executive propose the business, guillotine the business and virtually never lose their business. We claim that we call the Executive to account. As we heard recently, the Public Accounts Committee, with its creature the auditor, does its best to track the path of some small part of public expenditure. To suggest that we here call effectively to account an Executive whose patronage extends ever further through British institutions is to delude ourselves. For half the Members in the House, the Chamber is but the antechamber to membership of the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. Of course they are very reluctant to see trimmed the powers to which they soon hope to aspire.
Much of this complaint is hardly new, but it is given a new urgency by two elements. The first is the creation of the European union and a real seepage of power from this place to Europe. Our mechanisms for monitoring the European Community are grossly inadequate. The House knows it and the public know it. The result is a further

erosion of our reputation as a legislature and with it an erosion of our reputation as individual Members of Parliament.
The second new element is that, after 14 years of Conservative government, virtually every other institution in the land has been subjected to scrutiny and reform. We alone seem to be content to watch our effectiveness decline and our power relative to the Executive diminish, without making any coherent attempt to change our ways.
We live in an age when respect for individuals and institutions has almost disappeared. That may not matter very much. A. J. P. Taylor suggested that the respect with which the British people held the people who were in authority varied in inverse proportion to the prosperity of the nation. So it may not matter if we are not held in great respect, but it does matter to this United Kingdom if its legislature spends most of its time on work peripheral to the nation's needs; and if that legislature leaves but little time for those things that it does especially well.
Before we start seriously considering what we should be paid, we should ask ourselves what on earth we are doing.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I intervene briefly as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund to report to the House on one effect of last year's decision to freeze parliamentary pay which, regrettably, is not very widely understood.
In the pay debate on 25 November 1992, I pointed out on behalf of the managing trustees that, if a Member of Parliament were to die during the pay freeze, the effect on the incomes of her or his dependants would-be lifelong if no way could be found to protect them. This is because the pensions and other benefits payable to widows, widowers and other dependants from the PCPF are based on the parliamentary salary in the deceased Member's last year of service and take no account of any subsequent increase in the salary to compensate for a period of pay freeze.
The untimely death of our much respected former colleague Judith Chaplin turned what was then a hypothetical problem into a very real and urgent one for the managing trustees of the pension fund. Unable to use that fund to help, we had to resort to the House of Commons Members' fund, to which all Members contribute, month by month, to help former colleagues and their dependants at times of urgent and special need.

Mr. John Garrett: What was the problem when the fund was so over-funded that the Treasury cut its contribution?

Mr. Morris: There is no power, as the Leader of the House will confirm, available to the trustees to top up the benefits of dependants in the case of a death of a Member in service.

Mr. Garrett: Change the rules, then.

Mr. Morris: The rules are frequently altered. We have secured, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, a great many improvements in the scheme in recent years, and others are in the pipeline; but others we have sought have still to be secured.
The Members fund, although it was not introduced for that purpose, was in fact the only possible means of ensuring that a bereaved family would not be made lifelong


losers by the pay freeze. What we did, with help from the Members fund, was to base the death in service payment and other benefits on a notional salary equal to that which our late colleague would have been paid if the freeze had not been imposed. We did the same of course, in the case of the late Robert Adley's family.
This could, however, only be a temporary measure to help the bereaved families most affected by the pay freeze and, as I hope to be able to explain in tomorrow's debate on pensions, the trustees of the pension fund have been working on the additional voluntary contribution scheme of which the Lord President is aware, and on which we can comment in more detail in tomorrow's debate. Among other provisions, the new scheme will give Members the opportunity to increase their pension benefits during periods of pay restraint.
It will be seen that the trustees have been at the thick end of problems created by the suspension, last year, of the parliamentary pay formula, and I hope that it will be agreed that they have done all that was possible to protect the families of Members who have died in service since the formula was suspended. The problem will be a continuing one until the value of the pay formula agreed by the House is restored, but the AVC scheme should at least limit its seriousness.
The moral of all this is that, when the House takes decisions like that taken last November to freeze parliamentary pay, it should have regard to the effect not only on members but also on widows and other dependants. For them, the consequences might not simply be of passing concern, but financially very hurtful, keenly resented and lifelong.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have heard three really good speeches and. I add to that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy leader of the Labour party, spoke briefly and with a great deal of common sense. Her speech will have been appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spelt out the current position, which is generally well understood by the media. That is one reason why we were not subject to the attacks we have suffered in previous years.
Let me give my view of what we ought to be doing. The House should set a level of pay in one Parliament to come into effect at the beginning of the next Parliament and, once set at an appropriate level, it should be left unchanged from one general election to another.
The level of pay is debatable. My personal view, which is not a matter for debate, as there is not an amendment or a motion to that effect tonight, is that it ought to be set at roughly the same level as a general practitioner in medicine. I am not arguing for it now, but giving my view on what it should be.
I do not believe that the present level of pay is appropriate for those who are waiting to become Ministers in a future Government—for example those Labour Members who have waited 14 years, and who may have to wait another 14 years. It is always awkward to have increases during a Parliament, and to settle the pay increase just after a general election, as used to be the case, causes difficulty to many people.
In the interim, it is better that the Government's motions should be approved, but I shall vote for amendment (a) if it is moved, as I do not believe that, just because a level of pay is set, it is compulsory for Members to take it. The situations and circumstances of Members of Parliament vary enormously—mine have. In the years when I was the only Member of Parliament in my family, my circumstances were different from what they are now. It is not easy to say what other people should be putting up with.
What happens between elections is normally a consequence of inflation rather than a general readjustment of the level of pay. That is the argument against regular increases during a Parliament. If the electorate and those who select candidates believe Members of Parliament not worth the general level of pay, in effect they are saying that only the very rich or the very poor should afford to become Members of Parliament.
Most of our constituents like to be represented by people in the middle-income groups, and people with middling levels of achievement or some concern for the welfare of those around them, as well as for their own material well-being, should be able to become Members of Parliament.
It is not the most important issue to our electors or to us, but it is worth resolving. The Government were right to put these general motions to the House.

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move amendment (a), in subsection (1)(a) leave out '£31,687' and insert '£30,854'.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned the weakness of my position, and I wish to begin there. She was right to point out that some Members of Parliament have many more responsibilities than others and, therefore, it is less appropriate for those with fewest positions to speak to my amendment.
Given that I am mindful of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those with greater responsibilities than mine, I am grateful for the chance to explain why I tabled the amendment.
I should much prefer to address the House from a position of strength rather than one of weakness, but my position is bound up with an argument. At any one time, the number of people in work is linked to the size of the wage packets taken by those in work. Therefore, there is a link between the size of pay packets and unemployment.
Let us consider what may be the situation in the public sector next year, if the Government say that there should be a pay freeze. In any one year, about 500,000 people who work in the public sector die, retire or leave their jobs for other reasons. The question that workers in the public sector will face is whether we fill those positions from among those who do not now have jobs, or do not fill them, but instead share among ourselves the wage packets that would have gone to people who are unemployed. The Government will be able to maintain that there is a pay freeze, but that we can have a pay increase of 5 per cent. That will be a crucial issue for the public sector next year, and I wish to participate in the discussion. It will be difficult to participate if we have not applied the same lesson to ourselves.
All of us—not only Labour Members—now represent constituencies scarred by unemployment. I should like to be able to tell the House that I am now hardened to those men—I say "men" without shame, because, over the past 15 years, there has been an increase in jobs for women and a collapse in the number of decently paid jobs for men—who come to my surgery, laugh, and say that they are now impervious to the fact that they will not get a job, so they are working the system. But while their mouths smile, their wintry eyes tell another tale.
I should like to be able to tell the House that I am hardened to that, but I am definitely not hardened to the situation when male constituents come into my surgery and simply cry as they tell me how life has been shattered, and they believe that it will not be put together again, because all that the future holds for them is unemployment.
Rightly, we are debating the prospect of increasing our pay. If we do that, the wage bill increases by £1 million in any one year. That £1 million could be spent differently; it need not go to us. I do not in any way say that Members of Parliament do not deserve the money or should not have it, but I want to register the fact that at any one time there is a link between the level of pay awards and the number of people in employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Prove it."] I have been trying to prove that case with my argument about the public sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not done it very well."] Perhaps, as my hon. Friends are saying, I have failed to present a powerful enough logical case to convince hon. Members or to marshal my argument with enough eloquence to convince them.
None the less, I believe that, if we are to hold out any hope to our constituents, we all have to face the question: are we prepared to share our rewards with those who are unemployed? There may be less painful ways of moving back towards full employment, but, if there are, we have not heard of them. This is one, but only one, method that is practical and could be implemented.
We are debating our pay and our rightful rewards, but we could give the debate about unemployment a total change of gear. We could call a halt to the phoney war that has raged over unemployment for the past 20 years, and give the debate a change of direction the like of which has not been seen for a long time.

Miss Emma Nicholson: We are all embarrassed at having to discuss our own pay. It is an especially unpleasant thing to have to do, and I ask the House to have the kindness to listen for a moment or two while I explore why such a debate is so embarrassing, and whether there is any other way in which the pay of Members of Parliament could be determined. I was forced to think about the subject at lunchtime today, because "The World at One" telephoned me and said that the programme had to have a Member of Parliament to balance a health care worker in a discussion on the increase in Members' pay.
I wanted to vote against the motion, but I felt it my duty to vote in favour, for a variety of perhaps unquantified reasons. Because I had to speak on "The World at One", I had to think through my position, and I found myself justifying the motion as effectively as I could.
There is a natural suspicion among us all of those who set their own rate of pay. It is an odd piece of authority to have. It is quite rare in our society, but we do have that authority. Other people who have the capacity to set their own rates of pay, such as directors of public companies, are subject to fierce and proper criticism from us as well as from the public, and at least they are responsive to shareholders.
Although we are technically accountable to the electorate, in this matter we are so far away from electoral accountability that there is no link at all. No ballot box is based on the way we vote on Members' pay: it is based on a bundle of many things. Directors are accountable to shareholders at an annual general meeting, and their rates of pay can be formally criticised.
Despite the fact that hon. Members find this debate embarrassing and always have done—that is shown by the shortness of the speeches, if no other indicator exists—we continue to vote ourselves pay rises, so we presumably feel that we deserve them. I want to deal with the reasons for that view.
I have a high regard, both personally and professionally, for the deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, I argue strongly against her reason—it is a commonly held perception—for justifying our pay rises, which is that some people have larger family responsibilities than others. Without meaning to be personally critical, I must say that that is an outdated and irrelevant argument. In what other line of work in the modern world would we allow rates of pay to be determined by family responsibilities? The rate should be determined by the value of the person performing the job—in other words, market forces.
It is extraordinary that, in the modern world, we should be discussing rates of pay and justifying them for any job in the United Kingdom on the basis of family responsibilities, friendships or who has particular income levels external to their rates of pay. Are we not able to look at the job we do and assess whether it is worth a particular rate of pay?

Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to detain the hon. Lady, but I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that people's rates of pay should be set by their family circumstances. I am suggesting that those of us who are under less financial pressure than others should perhaps have regard to that fact in our criticisms of whether a pay rise should be awarded.

Miss Nicholson: With respect, that is merely the same argument turned round and addressed another way. Those of us who are or have been employers outside the House of Commons know that it would be nonsense to look at a group of employees and say that one must be more sensitive to a particular person's pay rise because of their background or family responsibilities. It is an inappropriate way in which to determine the rate of pay.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Nicholson: No.
Another much stronger point was suggested, perhaps also by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—that there is an over-large, if I may make a judgment in using that word, financial burden on Members of Parliament whose constituency pressures are exceptionally large for a variety of reasons. They may find that they have


to disburse part of their salary to fulfil their obligations. In those circumstances there is a corollary with the business world. In what other line of work has any of us been involved where, if one generates more productive work, one is not given more resources with which to fulfil one's commitments to the job? That is a compelling argument.
Where Members of Parliament fall down is that, in assessing the job, we do not take on board the necessity of examining the different ways in which we perform. We happily gloss over that. We have a rate of pay for our work irrespective of the way in which we perform. It is not an impossible conundrum. I believe that there might be ways in which our over-long hours, the distances that we travel and particular responsibilities pertaining to the job could be taken into account. Some Members have been here longer than many others. Surely there should be some way of rewarding them for their years of service. There are many determinants and indicators which are well used in other sectors of pay review.
It ought to be possible for us to remove this interminable debate from the House of Commons. I strongly believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should seriously consider the appointment of a permanent pay review body which would ensure that we never have to go through this misery again.
We are fortunate in having an honest House of Commons. Despite all our difficulties and pressures and despite the complexities, we are proud to have a House of Commons which is completely honourable and where there is no cheating of any sort. Could we not take the further step of giving away the responsibility for determining our own pay, as other Parliaments do? We should have an external body and cut out these debates once and for all.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I shall not follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I find it strange that she believes that those in industry who award themselves large sums are accountable to shareholders. The suggestion was greeted with some hilarity on the Opposition Benches. I prefer to return to the practical side of the issue and to what the Leader of the House said.
When we discussed our pay last year, the Leader of the House promised us that he would try to ensure that the link with the civil service was not broken. I am pleased that he has returned this year to give us a notional link. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I believe that we must wait to see how it turns out in practice.
When I spoke in the debate last year, I said that we would not get any plaudits for not taking the 3·9 per cent. increase which was awarded in August 1992 and should have been paid to us in January this year. Indeed, we received no recognition for instituting the pay freeze. The press has condemned us. The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sunday Mirror brought out all the usual arguments about greedy Members of Parliament. None of them took into account the fact that we had had a pay freeze for the past 12 months. When we catch up, we shall be £2,000 out of pocket. If we cut our pay tonight, the press would say that we had obviously been overpaid. We would never win the argument.
We do not need lessons from editors who are on six-figure salaries. If they want to set an example, they should cut their own pay first and then talk to the rest of us about ours. In January next year, we will not even catch up to the 3·9 per cent. We will receive only 2·7 per cent. It will be two years before we catch up.
I found the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) rather unusual. He said that, if we all took a little less, we could find employment for more. If that were true, with the low wages that are paid in Calcutta, there would be no unemployment there. It is not true that taking a cut in wages generates employment for someone else. Of course no one is forced to take any increase that is awarded. It is up to each Member to make up his or her mind. If hon. Members take the increase, they can give it to a good cause or help other people.
If hon. Members take the increase, they can give it to a good cause or help other people.
There are two classes of hon. Members in this place. There are those who depend on their salaries and those who are not totally dependent on them. I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who also signed the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is not in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West is not totally dependent on his House of Commons salary. He has consultancies, one of which involves accountancy. I wonder whether he will be giving those up. It is far easier to lecture the House when one is not totally dependent on the salary that one takes from this place.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend surprised by the absence of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern)?

Mr. Hoyle: I admit that we do not expect the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West to be here all the time. He is a busy man, ensuring that he is not totally dependent on the salary that he receives from this place.
If we accept the proposals, we will not have to return to this House year after year in respect of this matter. I congratulate the Leader of the House on making that possible. I hope that this is the last occasion in this Parliament that we have to debate the issue. I respect people who come along and say things to us. However, I will not be lectured by the barons of the press.

Sir Terence Higgins: The House always approaches the question of Members' pay with considerable diffidence. None of us would dispute the fact that there is a real presentational problem. We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for setting out the real position so clearly.
There is no doubt that, at the end of last week, the coverage in the media, on the radio and television, was very distorted. Numerous reports stated that we were about to award ourselves pay increases of more than thrice the level of inflation, or certainly more than the level of inflation. There were varying reports, but that was their general tenor. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made it absolutely clear that that is not the case. It is very important to get that point across.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that, if we consider the period from the end of 1992 to 1995, the proposal will


mean that we have exercised greater restraint on our pay than is the case with regard to the civil service. In the broad context of pay restraint, that is very important.
While the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was heartfelt, and the repercussions on pay policy generally may have some of the implications to which he referred, we can reasonably claim that we sought to set an example. In the light of our experience last year, it would be optimistic to suppose, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) suggested, that this will have much effect. However, we have tried in this case.
I want to detain the House for a moment to consider a longer-term perspective. There is an excellent research paper in the Library. I have been an hon. Member for almost 30 years and I noted with some interest that the level of pay set just after I became a Member, in real terms, was higher than the present proposals. We have still not reached the level of our pay in the early 1960s.
After a little more research, I discovered that average earnings over that period have increased nineteenfold in cost terms and by 90 per cent. in real terms. While our level has remained exactly the same, in a broad sense the standard of living of the population as a whole has increased by 90 per cent. To a considerable extent, that shows the way in which successive debates on hon. Members' pay have affected our relative position.
We have made two attempts to take the matter out of the political arena and have some impartial assessment of it. The first involved the Top Salaries Review Body, or whatever it is called now. Over the years, that body has made several recommendations. The graph in the Library shows what the position was. In 1975, a recommendation was made and rejected. In 1979, a recommendation was made and rejected or, more accurately, we got half of it one year, a quarter the following year and a further quarter the year after that. The review body made recommendations in 1983, and they were rejected. It would be optimistic to suppose that that forms an effective way to deal with the problem outside the political arena.
We have also tried to link our salaries with those of the civil service. The first attempt to do that was as long ago as 1975. A vote in the House, by a majority, agreed that we should be linked to the level of deputy secretary, but after the election it was not implemented. I am not sure what level of salary a deputy secretary is now paid, but it is something like £60,000. In 1983, we ended up with the rather bizarre idea of having 89 per cent. of the salary of someone at grade 6. The reason for that is lost in the mists of time, but I think that it was part of a compromise by Sir Edward du Cann. That may explain why.
In 1987, we said that we would have a permanent linkage with the civil service, and, having voted for that on three separate occasions, we thought that we would get that, until the 1992 autumn statement, when there was a freeze, and the permanent link was broken. As a result, we are in our present dilemma, and we shall again have to catch up over a period of some years, before we get back to where we should have been in January 1992. I fear that the link is not a satisfactory arrangement. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North suggested, it is worth considering to what extent the freeze we had last year had any effect.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House promised last year that he would ensure that there was not a permanent reduction in the level of Members' pay, with us being left further and further behind. The reality is that while he said that we would not be permanently disadvantaged, the time lag has, as he pointed out, meant that we are permanently disadvantaged, at any rate to the extent of £2,000. That has gone for ever. It is right that we should get back to the linkage.
What my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is proposing is in line with the Government's policy that we should encourage pay restraint. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, that is important. That being so, it is entirely reasonable, if the matter is looked at impartially and objectively, that we should support the Leader of the House, and those on the Opposition Front Bench, on what has been put before us this evening.

Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) has done us a service in setting the debate in a historical context, and reminding us of what the Leader of the House said—that the increase that we shall get if the motion is approved will be, on 1 January 1994, a 2·7 per cent. increase when inflation, unless there is a miracle in the next two months, will have gone up by 4·6 per cent. As we have been reminded, as a result of having our pay frozen over the past year, we shall have lost £2,000 by the time we eventually reach the promised parity. It is important to set the context properly.
I can say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said on behalf of the Labour party, that there will be no party line, and each of my colleagues will make up his or her mind according to how he or she sees fit. I shall support the motion. We should acknowledge that the undertakings that the Leader of the House gave last year, when he moved the motion setting up the freeze, he has earnestly sought to honour. It is a great credit to him that he has fought for that, and succeeded. There is no question of dishonour for those who support the motion, who debated the freeze last year on the basis that we would return to parity, and who wish to carry that through and vote accordingly.
One of the most significant comments so far was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that 27 years ago he received the grade 6 civil service pay—of which, until very recently, we were going to award ourselves 89 per cent. That shows that many right hon. and hon. Members do not come here only for the money. I do not complain about that. We have made a choice; we know what we are letting ourselves in for. Equally, it is not unreasonable that we should have a fair rate for the job and that we should be reasonably remunerated.
Certainly we are not so well remunerated as many legislatures in the European Community or the United States. Indeed, some statistics which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had the Library compile before last year's debate showed that
adult males in April 1992 above the £590 paid to MPs were: general managers and administrators in national and local government … marketing and sales managers … medical practitioners … solicitors … ship and aircraft officers, air traffic planners … underwriters … brokers, and investment analysts".


One could go on. We are not seeking the earth. It is not unreasonable to seek reasonable remuneration.
We broke the link, no doubt for a good reason. Let us be fair: we did it as a gesture. Having broken that link, we have to go through the agony of again having to vote ourselves a pay rise. I hope that, by restoring a link, we can actually have the guts to stick to it. It is questionable what effect that gesture had, even if we were to vote for another pay freeze tonight. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that it would save £1 million. My calculation is that at 650 times—it is not actually 650, because the proposed increase for salaried Members is less than the proposed increase for ordinary Members—it would be only about £520,000, a good part of which would return to the Treasury in tax.
I do not believe for one moment that that will affect the economic direction of the country, no matter how difficult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary have found things in the past few months. Therefore, we should support the motion and acknowledge that the Leader of the House has honoured his undertaking and that it is quite consistent, having voted for a freeze last year, to follow it through and support the motion.

Sir Jim Spicer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he introduced this matter, in particular the way in which he reminded us of the pledge given to the House last year. It was on the basis of that pledge that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members accepted the need for the freeze and voted for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, for the remarkable way in which, in a few minutes, she encapsulated the views of many right hon. and hon. Members.
I have the honour to serve under the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as one of the trustees of the pension group. When the freeze was initiated, I spoke about pensions and the effect of that freeze on pensioners. Nobody should forget that that will not go away; it will remain with us for some time to come. Even when we catch up, we will still be that much behind. The effect on pensions will be not for one or two years but for 20 or 25 years for some widows or widowers.
We know that, whatever we do or say tonight, we will never get it right in the eyes of the general public. I have already received lovely letters saying, "I don't think that you should increase your pay; you shouldn't freeze it; you shouldn't have any bloody pay at all because you are all absolutely useless." We will receive those letters—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have not received one.

Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend need not worry; he will.
I appeal to some hon. Members who might be inclined to say, "Okay, I am going to abstain. I know that the measure will go through tomorrow and I will be able to bravely say to my constituents or on the radio, 'I did not vote for this increase'." If they follow that course, in all honesty they should write to the Fees Office refusing the increase.
Alternatively, those who feel impelled to vote against what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has

proposed tonight could make a contribution to charity through the give-as-you-earn scheme. I did a little investigation this morning, and I was shocked to find that only about 55 Members currently do so. I hope that most hon. Members will follow the lead that has been given by the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the Opposition, vote in favour of this and accept the inevitable result of the public saying, "There they go again."
I am thinking not of my time in the House, but of what will happen in the years ahead. I want to get away from those awful first 16 years that I spent in the House when, year after year, we went through this awful ritual, and, whatever we did, we never found favour in the eyes of the general public.

Ms Rachel Squire: What the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said about pensions could be even more of a reason why this debate should be about public service pay generally, not just the pay of Members of Parliament.
I have three points to make about the pay of Members of Parliament and public service workers. First, we are public servants. We are here to serve our constituents and to argue for the policies that we believe will be of benefit to them. There are 5 million other public service workers and they feel considerably aggrieved by the Government's treatment of them. They were given an undertaking last year that the 1·5 per cent. pay limit would not be repeated, yet it is being repeated.
I agree with many of the comments made by hon. Members about the embarrassment of debating our pay, particularly given some of the antics that take place in this Chamber, a good example of which occurred tonight. It is hardly any wonder that members of the public sometimes call into question their general opinion of politicians.
I accept what has been said about the media's responsibility for part of the impression of politicians, and I make it clear that many of us do not accept fat consultancy fees, but spend our entire office allowance on employing people and providing a service to our constituents. However, as we are well aware, the long hours and commitments of many hon. Members are often not reported.
My next point relates to the low pay of many public service workers, despite their hard work and commitment. More than half a million of them earn less than £174 per week. The 1·5 per cent. pay increase for, say, a nursing auxiliary, will amount to an increase of only about £2 a week before tax, and many of us have spent more than that tonight simply on one meal.
The increase in national insurance contributions, higher prices in general and VAT on fuel mean that many public service workers have had a pay cut.
My final point relates to talk about performance-related pay. The Government are saying that, for other public service workers, but not for us, there will be no pay increase in 1994–95 unless there is performance-related pay. I shall finish by suggesting that, if any people should base their salaries on performance-related pay, it should be Ministers. I predict that, if the salary of Ministers were related to the public view of their performance on economic policy, they would soon be arguing for a minimum wage to be introduced.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Clearly, one can make a case for continuing our pay freeze in a fashion which seems, at least at first sight, morally very attractive. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did that with his usual ability and lucidity. One can make a case for continuing a pay freeze in a more demagogic or populist fashion, and the media seem to be good at doing that.
I shall vote for the motions with no hesitation or embarrassment at all. If we do not support the restoration of the link with civil service pay, we shall be doing something that is profoundly irresponsible, and for a simple reason. If we continue with a pay freeze, only one of two things logically can happen. Either each year we will continue to face a real decline in the value of our pay. That means that, if inflation continues at any rate, ultimately, logically and with mathematical certainty, eventually the real level of our pay will be virtually worthless. If that happens, we will have returned to the practice of the 18th and 19th centuries when people could come to this House only if they had substantial private means or, much more sinisterly, if they had a powerful patron or interest group prepared to pay to send them here. I do not think that any hon. Members seriously want that.
Otherwise, if we do not restore the link with civil service pay, the only logical alternative is that the gap between civil service pay and our own will steadily expand and we will simply have postponed dealing with a difficult problem, making it much more difficult to deal with it subsequently when we must do so. Surely that cannot be good politics, and it cannot be a responsible decision of the House.

Mrs. Fyfe: rose—

Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me—I have very little time and I want to be uncharacteristically brief.
There is no doubt whatever that the gesture we made at the beginning of 1992 to accept a pay freeze went completely unappreciated. Certainly I never heard a single word from anyone in my constituency or elsewhere saying that he thought that it was a good idea or a noble thing to do, and certainly no one suggested that it would affect his or her pay bargaining or wage setting behaviour. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone took seriously that suggestion at that time, or at any other time.
We should not be misled into empty gestures. And certainly, we should not be influenced by demagogy, populism, or what is written in the media. It would be a form of moral corruption to allow our judgment in this or any other matter to be subject to intimidation by the press or anyone else outside the House. We should do what we believe is right in all the circumstances, and I believe that that means that we should support the Leader of the House this evening.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am sorry that the two amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends have not been selected for a Division.
In reality, there are two classes of Members in this House. There are those who depend entirely on their parliamentary salary for their livelihood and those who, when elected, obtain parliamentary adviserships and

company directorships—[Interruption.]—are paid by lobby organisations and, sometimes, by the media. [Interruption.] Some of them are squealing now, because I am raising this in Parliament and they do not like it.
Many Members receive much more than their parliamentary salary from outside interests. Some Members directly prejudice their own position in the House because of their allegiance to their paymasters. It is entirely wrong to have two classes of Members and only one level of payment. My amendment would allow—

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I do not have much time. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and I have only a few minutes left.
My amendment would allow Members who depend on this place for a livelihood to receive the increase, but not those who receive more than £2,000 a year from outside interests. That would allow some flexibility for the odd television appearance and the odd article. It could not be argued, for example, that a £10 payment for a television interview would prevent a Member from having the increase. It would allow Members who operate in a reasonable framework and Members who are determined to work full time in Parliament to do so. It would exclude from this place the corruption caused by outside interests.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman is wasting his time standing up.
Sometimes it is argued that it is necessary to have Members with outside interests to bring experience to this House. Those who argue in that way are always those with a highly paid directorship, on £10,000 a year from parliamentary lobbyists and so on. They never spend time down some of the few remaining coal mines or in poorly paid manual occupations. Those with between two and eight outside jobs here simply exhibit the symptoms of greed.
Members who resent any criticism about our judgment and our salaries should bear in mind the fact that the Government set the level of payment for the poorest people. They set the levels for child support and income support. Members are in receipt of salaries that are greater than those of most constituents. The Government set the level of income at low rates because, when they get into an economic mess, they always hit the poor to get themselves out of it. It is not surprising, then, that, when salaries are discussed, they invite some criticism.
My second amendment relates to public sector workers.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the House wishes, rightly, to assert the rate for our job tonight, it should at an early stage consider the rate for the job of elected members of local councils, who are disgracefully underpaid and have been for many years?

Mr. Cryer: That could reasonably be taken into account. My hon. Friend is right: there are double standards. The standards imposed by this Government and this House on local councillors for revealing their financial interests—it is a criminal penalty for any councillor to vote


on anything in which they have a financial interest—are not imposed in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was right to draw attention to that.
My second amendment, which I regret has not been selected, relates to other public sector workers, on whom the Government have imposed a 1·5 per cent. limit on pay increases. My amendment simply says that any increase given to Members of Parliament should automatically apply to other public sector workers. Why should not the police, nurses, firemen and other public sector workers receive the same percentage increase that we are to get? That would make sense and would only be fair. It would show that we value nurses, for example, as highly as Members of Parliament.
As my amendments have not been selected, I shall not support the motion. I shall support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), which I hope he will move to demonstrate that all is not well in this Parliament. Until the question of outside jobs is sorted out and Members of Parliament become full-time, because they are paid enough to be full-time, a big question mark will remain over pay in this House.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: For an ex-Euro Member of Parliament to make such a speech brings unctuousness to a new achievement—[Interruption] That is an unparliamentary expression, so I cannot pick it up. On the basis of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) tonight, he was overpaid then and he is overpaid now.
I shall certainly support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He made a powerful case in support of the motion before the House, and I understand any Member taking that view as well. The idea that we are somehow awarding ourselves more than the public sector is false, and my right hon. Friend set out dramatically the reasoning for that.
I was also highly impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She set a theme for the debate which, with one possible exception, has been followed through: that it is unseemly—to be fair, it has not happened tonight—to have one Member lecturing another on what pay rise he is entitled to take. By any reasonable approach, the proposal is reasonable. But the hon. Lady was fair enough to say that different demands fall on different Members because of their different circumstances.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), we should not say that we should be paid because of the various responsibilities that we have taken on. That is not the point. For the current year, I shall ask the Fees Office to give me a 1·5 per cent. rise. The fact that I can do that must be influenced by the fact that I have private means. I should like to think that, if I did not, I would still reach that decision. I probably would but, in all conscience, I cannot put out of my mind the fact that I can afford to do it. I suppose that those of us with wealthy spouses also try to put it out of their minds and are not influenced by that. But they might be.
My position is somewhat ironic. Perhaps we made a mistake last year in freezing our pay. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) fairly said, our doing so got no plaudits out there in the marketplace. Ironically, had

we taken a 1·5 per cent. rise last year and a 1·5 per cent. rise this year, we would have done slightly better, and it would also have been justified.
Although it may not have done much good out there, in a sense I found it useful. When people came to my surgery banging my desk—sometimes literally—saying, "I am doing a very worthwhile job in the public sector, so I should be paid more," I could say, "I know. You are doing a thoroughly worthwhile job, but I can't take that into account. I take into account what the nation thinks it can afford for your duties." That underpins the motion which my right hon. Friend has brought to the House tonight.
No member of Parliament does not know, in his heart of hearts, that the overwhelming majority of us on both sides of the House put our backs into this job and, compared with the salary that we could command in the marketplace, we are paid considerably less. But a judgment must be made about what we can afford.
I am sure that this motion is right, and I well understand the action of any hon. Member who votes in favour of it. Moreover, I see nothing inconsistent in saying that we must all be answerable for ourselves: many different influences are brought to bear on us. I personally have decided to accept an increase of 1·5 per cent., for the current year at least; but that is an entirely personal judgment, which I do not urge on anyone else.

Dr. Tony Wright: Tonight's speeches—with the exception of one or two by Opposition Members—have been self-congratulatory. I want, just for a moment, to strike a rather more discordant note.
I take my cue from the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that for 14 years Parliament has not asserted itself against the Executive. I found myself agreeing with him. On only eight occasions since 1979 have the Government been defeated on the Floor of the House; it was seven before the recent Maastricht hiccup. On no fewer than three of those occasions, the issue has been Members' pay and allowances.
I ask the House to reflect on what the public will make of that. What conclusion will they reach about the ability of this Parliament to be a Parliament—to hold the Executive to account, and to take the action that our constituents expect us to take when they write to us? We should think seriously about the fact that we do not do those things, and about the fact that we can engineer this consensus tonight. When we are discussing other matters, we march through the Lobbies in the way decreed by the Whips and the executive.
That is one of my two reservations about the motion. The other is this. When I first became a Member of Parliament, I was told that I should buy a Ford Sierra with diesel. When I asked why, I was told, "It is the Member of Parliament's car. You get an allowance of 68·2p a mile if you drive a motor car with an engine capacity of more than 2300 cc." That is outrageous: it rewards vice, not virtue. [Interruption.] It rewards environmental vice. It encourages exactly the kind of behaviour that we should be discouraging.
When I first became a Member of Parliament, I went to a meeting at which there was a great movement to reform allowances. Someone made a proposal that prompted someone else to say, "Ah, but if we do that they will want


to do a proper audit on us." No proper audit is done on us: no proper audit is carried out on what Members of Parliament do, or on how they spend their allowances.
My first conclusion is that there ought to be such an audit; my second—this is another attempt to agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—is that, if we want to carry our constituents and the country with us on issues such as this, we must become a different kind of Parliament from the Parliament that we are now. At present, we are an unreformed Parliament. There is a whole reform agenda out there, and, if we are serious about holding Governments to account and representing our constituents, we need to act on it.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [29 October], That the amendment by made:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 279.

Division No. 400]
[12.54 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Alton, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Pickthall, Colin


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Pope, Greg


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Porter, David (Waveney)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Dowd, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Elletson, Harold
Spring, Richard


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Stevenson, George


Gallie, Phil
Trotter, Neville


Gill, Christopher
Walden, George


Gordon, Mildred
Walley, Joan


Harvey, Nick
Ward, John


Hawkins, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kilfedder, Sir James
Mr. Harry Barnes and


McCrea, Rev William
Ms Liz Lynne.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Burns, Simon


Allen, Graham
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Ashton, Joe
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Austin-Walker, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clelland, David


Bell, Stuart
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bennett, Andrew F.
Coffey, Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Conway, Derek


Betts, Clive
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Boswell, Tim
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowis, John
Darling, Alistair


Brandreth, Gyles
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bright, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Deva, Nirj Joseph





Devlin, Tim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Key, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leigh, Edward


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lewis, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Lightbown, David


Enright, Derek
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Etherington, Bill
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
McAllion, John


Evennett, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew


Faulds, Andrew
Maclean, David


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McMaster, Gordon


Forth, Eric
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Madden, Max


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Madel, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Fyfe, Maria
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mandelson, Peter


Galloway, George
Mans, Keith


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Garrett, John
Marlow, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Graham, Thomas
Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Meale, Alan


Gunnell, John
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Milligan, Stephen


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) 
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Mudie, George


Hayes, Jerry
Murphy, Paul


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Needham, Richard


Heppell, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Sir Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Home Robertson, John
Norris, Steve


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ottaway, Richard


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Paice, James


Hoyle, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Prescott, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Randall, Stuart


Illsley, Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Rendel, David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn






Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trend, Michael


Sackville, Tom
Tumer, Dennis


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tyler, Paul


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Short, Clare
Wallace, James


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Nicholas
Watson, Mike


Spellar, John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Willetts, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilson, Brian


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wise, Audrey


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wray, Jimmy


Stewart, Allan
Yeo, Tim


Stott, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Strang, Dr. Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 42.

Division No. 401]
[1.07 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cox, Tom


Arbuthnot, James
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Darling, Alistair


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H.


Betts, Clive
Dorrell, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Booth, Hartley
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brandreth, Gyles
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bright, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Enright, Derek


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Etherington, Bill


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Forman, Nigel


Carrington, Matthew
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Chapman, Sydney
Forth, Eric


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek





Foster, Don (Bath)
Madden, Max


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Madel, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Galloway, George
Mandelson, Peter


Gapes, Mike
Mans, Keith


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


Gerrard, Neil
Marlow, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Graham, Thomas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grocott, Bruce
Maxton, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gunnell, John
Meale, Alan


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hain, Peter
Michael, Alun


Hall, Mike
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Mudie, George


Hayes, Jerry
Murphy, Paul


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Doug
Nelson, Anthony


Heppell, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hicks, Robert
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Norris, Steve


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hoon, Geoffrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Paice, James


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Patchett, Terry


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prescott, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Purchase, Ken


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Randall, Stuart


Illsley, Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Rendel, David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Leigh, Edward
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lewis, Terry
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lightbown, David
Short, Clare


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spellar, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


McAllion, John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McAvoy, Thomas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLeish, Henry
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stott, Roger


McMaster, Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Streeter, Gary






Sweeney, Walter
Watson, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Willetts, David


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thurnham, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wray, Jimmy


Tyler, Paul
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Derek Conway.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Khabra, Piara S.


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Alton, David
Lidington, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Aspinwall, Jack
McCrea, Rev William


Austin-Walker, John
Marland, Paul


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bates, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Paisley, Rev Ian


Benton, Joe
Pickthall, Colin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Pope, Greg


Clelland, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Skinner, Dennis


Dowd, Jim
Spink, Dr Robert


Elletson, Harold
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Stephen, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Sykes, John


Gill, Christopher
Wareing, Robert N


Gordon, Mildred



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Hawkins, Nick
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29th October],

That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) In respect of service in 1994—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.

(2) In respect of service in 1995—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.

(3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and
(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(4) For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;
(b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972; and
(c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29th October],
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved. —[Mr. Newton.]
Question agreed to.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be:

Motions on Members' pensions
Motions relating to statutory instruments on sports grounds and sporting events
Motions on parliamentary Questions
Proceedings on the following consolidation Bills:

The Crofters (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Scottish Land Court Bill [Lords], the Health Service Commissioners Bill [Lords], the Probation Service Bill [Lords], the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords];
followed by a motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Could he answer two simple questions? First, he has courteously come tonight with a statement about tomorrow's business. Why could he not have come at seven o'clock with a statement about the business earlier this evening? Secondly, will he tell the House, so that there is no doubt, what will be the procedure if the Lords sustain their opposition to the Railways Bill when they receive our report tomorrow? What is the constitutional position?

Mr. Newton: On the first question, it will be within the hon. Gentleman's recollection, because he was here, that there was criticism from some quarters of my intervention at seven o'clock on the ground that, even as a brief point of order, it took time out of a guillotined debate. Some of that criticism was perhaps subsequently deployed for other reasons, but at any rate that criticism was made.
If I had made a statement, which would have been followed by extensive questioning, that would certainly have damaged a guillotined debate and would have been a legitimate cause for complaint among those involved with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, it is for others to give advice on the rest of the matters that he raised.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: In thanking my right hon. Friend for an interesting and entertaining evening, may I ask whether he agrees that it does not bestow any great dignity on the House if certain Members, from whatever party, sabotage democratic procedures in such a way that the—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a business statement. We are discussing tomorrow's business, not making long statements about what has gone on, which I deplore as much as anyone in the House. If the hon. Gentleman has a question about tomorrow's business, I will hear it. But that is all that I will hear.

Mr. Hayes: I am most grateful for that, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Madam Speaker that it would be quite wrong for any Further sabotage to take place tomorrow?

Mr. Newton: I can hardly decline to agree with Madam Speaker. More to the point, I should like to make the point in response to my hon. Friend—it is relevant to the business statement—that one of the reasons for the statement was our inability to get through business that was properly laid for today, because of tactics in the Division Lobbies which exceeded anything that I have seen in 20 years in the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I had not intended to respond to the business statement, because I did not want to detain the House at this hour. However, it should be put on the record that it is because the Government sought to stampede their business through the House earlier tonight that they will have to come back tomorrow with business which, if they had proceeded reasonably through proper discussion and agreement, we could have dealt with tonight. It serves the Government right.

Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Lady thinks that that kind of point justifies the blocking tactics that we saw in the Division Lobby today, this is a very sorry day for this place.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful behaviour of Opposition Members, the filibustering and the delays in the Lobby showed the real negation of democracy tonight?

Mr. Newton: I agree that were those tactics to be seen again, that would raise real questions about the commitment of those on the Opposition Front Bench to democratic procedures in the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will not tomorrow's business be rather crowded, as there are already many orders set out in the Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on the Order Paper? Instead of having to come to the House to make repeated business statements, would it not be better for the Government to recognise that they have put themselves in a hole through their insistence on regarding Parliament as a legislative sausage machine and extend the business into next week so that we can have a proper timetable for debate on issues such as unemployment, the difficulties of manufacturing industry and the difficulties facing people on low incomes? We could very usefully spend next week debating a host of subjects if we did not have this pressure behind us all the time.

Mr. Newton: If there is any pressure on tomorrow's business of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman objects, the fault lies with the tactics that were used by the Opposition tonight.

Mr. Tony Marlow: If there are any messages from the other place tomorrow, at what stage in our proceedings with they be taken? Will they be taken before or after the debate on the motion on pay for Opposition parties?

Mr. Newton: I obviously cannot predict the timing without knowing the timing of progress in another place. However, I anticipate that the timing would be such that the debate on the motion to which my hon. Friend referred would be after the consideration of Lords messages.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House must stop whining about the proceedings earlier


this evening and address the points at issue. Why is it not possible to make a business statement after guillotined business, as opposed to making points of order during guillotined business?

Mr. Newton: Because, as I said at the time, the obvious need for the House to consider the message from the Lords in our view—and I make no apology for that—made it right to give the House notice of the intention to discuss those messages at the earliest possible moment, and that is what I did.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling scenes that we witnessed earlier this evening, including deliberate attempts to undermine the authority of the Chair, owed a great deal to the Labour party's embarrassment over the fact that it did not have enough hon. Members in the House to achieve a decent vote in the Division Lobby? Labour played for time to allow Labour Members to return. What conversations will my right hon. Friend have through the usual channels to ensure that the Labour party has the courtesy to have adequate numbers of hon. Members here in good time for the debates tomorrow?

Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that there will be some discussions about that matter and others through the usual channels. At least, I hope that there will be such discussions. In view of the terms used by my hon. Friend, the worst thing about tonight is that there is no sign that those on the Opposition Front Bench even have the grace to be embarrassed about it.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the motions relating to football spectators are the motions that we should have debated this evening, and that those motions were on the Order Paper as a result of a request from the official Opposition? Bearing in mind the fact that that business was lost today as a result of the Labour party's disgraceful behaviour, why are we to debate it tomorrow? Why not just drop it?

Mr. Newton: That business was placed on the Order Paper properly. While I have every sympathy with and share the irritation expressed by my hon. Friend, it is proper that business that is placed on the Order Paper properly, as this busines was, should be discussed properly —if the Opposition allow that to happen tomorrow.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In responding to my right hon. Friend's business statement 48 hours ago, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that it was a "constitutional outrage". Is not the true constitutional outrage the antics of the Labour party, which has lost both the argument and the votes tonight?

Mr. Newton: Yes.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Given that we are debating so many fascinating and interesting matters tomorrow, would it be possible to squeeze in an extra debate on the tactics that were adopted this evening, and give the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) the opportunity to repudiate Labour Whips who lied about the figures in the Division Lobby in an attempt to get divisions declared void?

Mr. Newton: I shall bear that request in mind, although it might cause some difficulty if I were to make a supplementary business statement immediately.

Mr. Eric Pickles: May I add my support to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? Tomorrow's business is full, and perhaps it might be appropriate to drop the debate on money for the Opposition parties. Perhaps it might also be made clear that the use of books to block the Serjeant at Arms from coming through the door is singularly inappropriate parliamentary action.

Mr. Newton: It was the episode with the books, which I had heard about, that led me to say earlier that, while every hon. Member has seen ups and downs, to put it mildly, over a long period—in my case, 20 years—I have never seen tactics like that adopted, whether in this or any other cause.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Would it not be easier to handle business in the House if we met a little more often? When we come back to debate the Queen's Speech, we shall have been away for 14 out of 17 weeks. Since the election of the present Prime Minister, the House has not been sitting for 40 per cent. of those weeks. That is why some of us thought that the vote tonight was disgraceful.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has expressed those views in various other ways before. I can only say that they do not appear to be shared by the large number of hon. Members who clearly wish to see progress on the Jopling report.

Mr. Rod Richards: When we debate the financing of Opposition parties, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is time to debate the appalling behaviour of the Labour party, and will he ensure that there is time to debate the lack of discipline in it, in the context of a complete absence of leadership? Will he also ensure that there is time tomorrow to ask the question, "When will the Buddha speak?"

Mr. Newton: I shall do my best to ensure that there is time available to debate those matters, but it will depend, once again, on the Opposition, being prepared to behave in a reasonably orderly fashion.

Mr. Derek Enright: Is it not the case that the incompetence and clumsiness of those on the Government Front Bench makes an elephant look like a dainty ballet dancer?

Mr. Newton: There is nothing in the behaviour of those on the Government Front Bench that leads to, or justifies, the blocking of Division Lobbies with books so as to prevent proper procedures in the House.

Mr. Nick Harvey: On the subject of the behaviour of the Government Front Bench, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that if the Government get into similar problems over time tomorrow, the Government Whips will be restrained from physically assaulting hon. Members?

Mr. Newton: That is a serious allegation. I have no doubt that if the Hon. Gentleman wishes to persist with it, Madam Speaker will cause it to be looked at.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is enough. We have to move on to the petition.

PETITON

Forestry Commission Land

Mr. Christopher Gill: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 800 people living in Ludlow and surrounding areas, expressing their concern about the loss of public access when Forestry Commission woodlands are sold. The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall ensure that if any further land owned or managed by the Forestry Commission is sold, provision shall be made that the public shall continue to enjoy freedom of access for recreational activities in perpetuity.

To lie upon the Table.

Elephant Conservation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Tony Banks: In retrospect, this is probably not the best night to have the Adjournment debate, but I am, none the less, grateful that I was given the opportunity.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have common concerns with regard to the welfare of animals. I strongly recommend to you a wonderful book by Heathcote Williams, entitled "Sacred Elephant". The book is a combination of epic poem, pictures and prose. It moves me to tears whenever I read it because it tells of a gentle giant of a creature with a complex social structure, a language, great intelligence, sensitivity and emotions—a glorious mystical creature at first revered by man but later killed, mutilated, exploited, tortured and humiliated by man.
The elephant's interaction with man goes back into the mists of antiquity. Brahma, it is said, concealed in each of the animals a profound secret. The elephant was
a beast of the moon with crescent tusks who has emerged from the churning seas.
He said that he had concealed wisdom. Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, had the head of an elephant towering above her own, and elephants pulling her chariots of knowledge. To the early Christians, the elephant was the bearer of all infirmities and lord protector, treading serpents underfoot. The Romans believed that the elephant was a religious animal. Pliny observed it
worshipping the sun and stars and purifying itself at the new moon, bathing in the river and invoking the heavens.
Those are the myths about the elephant—the facts are even more astounding. They reveal a creature remarkably like ourselves, but with one vital exception—elephants do not possess our obscene cruelty. When an elephant gives birth, another female—the midwife elephant—will stand by until the process is complete. The females will never desert their young. The young show respect for the old. Among land mammals, the only brain larger than man's is the elephant's. Elephants can communicate sub-sonically with each other. Low-frequency sounds can travel more than 12 miles. The only other example of low-frequency communication among animals is the call of the whale, another highly developed social creature. It is said that, with the single exception of the whale, the elephant is the finest swimmer of all mammals. Journeys of more than 300 miles have been recorded.
Elephants never attack the weak, even when being hunted. Threatened and attacked by overwhelming odds, the bulls will place themselves in the line of fire, dying in the cause of the greater good, and protecting the young. They can live for up to 200 years, but few are left to die naturally. Captured and tied up for hours in a logging camp, an elephant will commit suicide. Elephants mourn and bury their dead. A captured elephant will perform last rites upon itself. An elephant in distress will weep salt tears —something that we thought only human beings did.
In today's world, the elephant has much cause to weep, and so have we. Last century, there were probably 10 million elephants, in 1970 there were 2 million, in 1979 there were an estimated 1·3 million and in 1989 there were fewer than 625,000. When I had a similar Adjournment debate on the subject in May 1989, the information


provided by the Minister for Overseas Development indicated that the elephant population in Africa could be as low as 300,000 to 400,000.
Since 1970, the main cause of the decline has been killing for ivory—ivory for billiard balls, children's toys, jewellery, carvings and personal seals; magnificent creatures slaughtered for ephemeral trash.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, listed the Indian elephant on appendix I in 1976. The African elephant was not placed in appendix I until 1989. A worldwide ban on the ivory trade was finally implemented in January 1990, but with a number of countries entering reservations, including the United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong. The price of ivory has been greatly reduced, but the demand is still there.
Before the last CITES meeting in Kyoto, an upsurge in poaching was reported in many parts of Africa. Clearly, ivory traders were hoping that the ivory ban would be weakened. They were disappointed, but the traders will try again, supported by a number of African countries.
Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that, at the next CITES meeting, the British Government will not waver when the question of reopening a legal ivory trade will undoubtedly be raised?
The Government informed me in July this year that they spend £2·85 million on conservation projects which may —I emphasise the word may—include benefits for elephants, but the sum is tiny in comparison with the scale of the problem and the significance of the objective: to save the African elephant from extinction. In Zimbabwe, the department of national parks and wildlife management literally ran out of money for four months of this year. As a consequence, rhino and elephant poachers had a free hand, and 85 white rhino and an unknown number of elephants were killed. Many elephant carcases were reported to have been seen along the base of the Zambesi escarpment.
Will the Government announce a substantial increase in funds dedicated to elephant conservation schemes in Africa? Money is needed for helicopters, infra-red detection equipment and Land-Rovers. All are desperately needed.
We in this country might have some economic problems, but saving the African elephant is far more significant. Economic problems, rather like Governments, come and go, but should the African elephant go it will never come back. An announcement of a significant increase in funding for elephant conservation schemes from the Government would receive widespread support in the House and country.
The great paradox of elephant conservation in Africa is that, while the total number of elephants is falling, there are a few areas where local over-population occurs. As a result, steps are being taken to control the elephant population, and culling is the usual method adopted. About 500 elephants are killed each year in the Kruger national park to keep South Africa's sole remaining sizeable elephant population at about 8,000.
Zimbabwe usually kills a few thousand each year, but in December 1991, the director of the Zimbabwe wildlife department announced the need to eliminate half the country's elephant population. If it goes through, it will kill some 35,000 animals.
Culling of elephants is cruel, inhumane and ethically wrong. There are alternatives, and I am deeply grateful to Ian Redmond, co-ordinator of the African Ele-Fund for providing me with details. Culling is portrayed as the humane, almost clinical, removal of a proportion of the population. Whole families of elephants are surrounded and killed in order to avoid leaving stressed individuals or groups who have lost their close relatives. That reasoning ignores the higher social organisation of elephant clans, their ability to communicate over several kilometres by means of infrasonic distress calls and their acute sense of smell. In addition, calves kept alive to be sold into captivity undergo severe trauma. Most are destined for a short life of social and sensory deprivation.
The question is whether culling can pay for conservation. It is often said that sales of elephant products resulting from culling operations can help to pay for conservation work. Yet culling elephants is itself an expensive business. In 1989, a Zimbabwean warden estimated that it cost $102 per elephant to cull 500, and a further $334 per animal to recover the carcases. At those prices, the proposed cull of 35,000 elephants would cost the Zimbabwean authorities more than $15 million.
Then the question of whose elephants they are arises. When elephants cross international boundaries, they create problems for wildlife managers. Elephant populations are calculated on a national basis, and management decisions taken accordingly. But is it right for one country, say, to provide artificial water holes which attract elephants from neighbouring countries, then count them all and decide that there are too many for the habitat to sustain and order a cull? That is questionable, especially when the resulting ivory and skins are intended to be sold to raise foreign exchange for the Government Treasury.
Revenue from tourism may suffer in two ways from culling—first, tourists who oppose culling are likely to visit other countries with more benign attitudes to elephants and, secondly, as long as elephants perceive humans in vehicles as harbingers of death, high-quality, high-profit, close-quarter observations by tourists will be difficult.
Many scientists believe that elephant populations will find their own level if left alone, but that may fluctuate in cycles. The natural way allows elephants to survive in extreme situations in genetic terms, but the survival of the fittest will prevail. Culling, on the other hand, does not improve the gene core. It reduces the genetic and cultural diversity of the population by wiping out families with the loss of their accumulated knowledge of local conditions and the end of their genetic lines. Most conservationists are fighting to maintain genetic diversity in populations of endangered species. Culling, as practised today, does exactly the opposite.
Increasing the areas available to elephants is an ideal solution, given the amount of pressure that man puts on herds. Given the profitability of eco-tourism, wildlife reserves are increasingly seen as an alternative, more sustainable way of managing elephant resources. It is much more profitable than agriculture.
Care for the Wild relies on voluntary donations for the removal of a large number of elephants. The relocation of elephants seems to be the way that management of the resource could be achieved. In Asia, elephants whose habitat has been converted to agriculture, or whose crop raiding behaviour becomes a problem, are moved. Individuals, especially bulls, are tranquillised and


transported on trucks or barges, and herds have been driven over considerable distances to save protected areas. African wildlife departments could learn from their Asian counterparts and adopt those techniques when conditions allow.
Recently, I had a meeting with members of Care for the Wild who were involved in the moving of complete family groups to suitable areas or other countries where elephant populations have been depleted by poaching. In July, Care for the Wild moved 500 elephants at a cost of £305 per head. New reserves are being set up in Zimbabwe by ranchers getting rid of uneconomic cattle. In one project, 800,000 acreas have been established and elephants moved there.
Zimbabwe national parks want a further 500 elephants removed from one of the areas early next year. Of course, an organisation such as Care for the Wild can greatly assist. It relies on voluntary donations. Recently, it received an exceedingly generous donation of £500,000 from Mr. Peter Borender, but more funds are desperately needed. Will the Government earmark special funds for removal schemes such as those operated by Care for the Wild?
Another possibility is elephant birth control. The Born Free Foundation has drawn up a three-year project for elephant fertility control under the supervision of Professor Roger Short, who recently published papers on the matter in The Lancet. Funds for the project are needed. They are not immense funds—certainly they are well within the compass of the Government to afford, and they would get the support of the House and the country as a whole. Will the Government discuss the Born Free Foundation project with a view to funding it?
Culling is not the only solution to the problem of local over-population of elephants. The alternatives presented here could, by capitalising on eco-tourism, be more profitable than culling, and would be more compatible with the mood of the public worldwide. They also have the advantage of saving rather than destroying the lives of elephants.
I quote:
In Pali scriptures it is duly set forth 'that the form under which Buddha will descend to the earth for the last time, will be that of a beautiful young white elephant, open-jawed, with a head the colour of cochineal, with tusks shining like silver sparkling with gems, covered with a splendid netting of gold, perfect in its organs and limbs, and majestic in appearance'.
If that is the form in which Buddha returns to earth, he is likely to feel very lonely, as he could end up being the only elephant left.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for raising this important issue, and pay tribute to him for his long-standing interest in elephant protection and conservation. Elephant conservation is an interest I share personally and a cause to which the Government remain fully committed, as evidenced by the support on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
I led the United Kingdom delegation at the conference in Kyoto last year of the parties to CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The discussion of the elephant issue loomed large. In talks with Ministers and senior representatives from African countries, I was able to hear

at first hand of the problems they face in conserving their elephant population in their differing countries and of their concerns.
Since the CITES conference, we have been playing a full and, indeed, leading role in maintaining dialogue with various Governments and we have also been active in promoting and funding conservation projects. I therefore welcome this opportunity to review action on promoting elephant conservation.
The United Kingdom was among the first countries to recognise the seriousness of the threat to elephants from poaching and pressure of human populations. A number of United Kingdom-based organisations, from the World Wild Fund for Nature to Elefriends and others mentioned, have been active in ensuring people had a good understanding of possible threats to elephant populations. The Government have long been in the forefront of international efforts to save this magnificent creature from extinction, so can I set out some of the action that we are taking.
Under CITES, the Asian elephant has always been fully protected, and monitoring of trade in some African elephants began in 1976. Numbers continued to decline, and tighter restrictions were introduced the following year. Commercial trade was then allowed only if sanctioned by the exporting country.
Sadly, despite these efforts, the African elephant continued to suffer losses at the hands of ruthless, determined and well-organised poachers. In 1980, there were estimated to be some 1·3 million elephants in Africa. Less than 10 years later, only 600,000 or so survived.
By 1989, it was clear that the threat to the elephant was both serious and immediate. We decided that the African elephant should, without delay, be given the maximum protection available by the international community. We made clear our intention to support a worldwide ban on trade in elephant products. We went further and persuaded our European Community partners to join us in imposing an immediate ban on imports of ivory into the Community without waiting for a decision on a general international ban through CITES.
The whole question of the conservation of the African elephant and the proposed trade ban was fully discussed at the CITES conference held in 1989. Amid some controversy, the conference agreed to ban the ivory trade, but acknowledged that different elephant range states had different problems. The conference accordingly decided to leave the door open for countries that had stable or increasing elephant populations, and were able to meet strict conditions, to apply in due course to resume trade in their elephant populations. Such countries argued that income from any trade in elephant products could be reapplied to the overall conservation and would give local farmers and local people an incentive to protect elephants.
At the Kyoto conference, South Africa, on its own, and the four other Southern African countries which form the Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing—SACIM —put forward proposals to reopen such trade under the conditions laid down in 1989. The SACIM countries are Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and Malawi. The essence of the conditions was that any proposals had to satisfy a panel of experts appointed by CITES that particular elephant populations were healthy and free from danger, and that any legal trade in ivory would not give rise to illegal trade threatening elephant populations in other countries.
The panel of experts' report indicated that some of those countries had managed to meet most of the conditions drawn up in 1989. Before the Kyoto conference, we had held extensive discussions with experts from around the world, and national and international organisations. We had examined all the available evidence, including the panel of experts' report, and I told the conference:
the ban on trade imposed in 1989 has been highly effective: the price of ivory has plummeted taking with it interest in poaching. The UK is determined that there shall be no return to the dismal days before the ban, when poaching was rife. We have held extensive discussions with experts from around the world, and national and international organisations. We have examined all the available evidence and we have noted in particular that the Panel of Experts found continuing illegal trade elsewhere in Southern Africa. Further, the Panel commented on the problems of controlling open bush borders. We therefore remain unconvinced that any country can prevent the mixing of legal and illegal ivory. Allowing trade in other elephant products would inevitably be seen by some as a precursor to the resumption of trade in ivory. This would lead to more poaching and mounting ivory stock piles.
We recognise, however, that import bans alone can achieve nothing. A United Kingdom—or even a global—boycott of elephant products will not guarantee the survival of elephants. Their well-being depends instead on the efforts of the African countries where they are found. We understand the pressures which poverty and growing populations place on some countries. The burden of conserving elephants for all our children to enjoy must not fall on them alone.
That is what I said in Kyoto and, against that background, we and the rest of the international community agreed that the existing ban on the trade in elephant products should continue.
That decision left the SACIM countries feeling hurt and misunderstood, and it is clear that opinion within Africa remained worryingly divided on elephant conservation. There was even talk of some countries leaving CITES. So we saw an urgent need to develop greater understanding among all concerned on the question of elephant conservation and trade. The challenge was to look for a way forward that took account of the legitimate concerns and aspirations of elephant range states, without jeopardising the progress made since the introduction of the ivory trade ban, and which recognised the importance of a coherent and co-ordinated African approach to elephant conservation.
At our instigation, the European Community pressed strongly in Kyoto for the dialogue between elephant range states and other interested parties to be maintained between conferences. Since then, the United Kingdom has taken the lead in promoting and co-ordinating further discussions.
In November last year, the United Kingdom led a delegation of EC officials to Africa to discuss the issues of elephant conservation and trade in depth. The main objective of the mission was to explore the scope for building consensus among African states on the elephant and ivory trade issue before the next CITES conference in 1994.
During nearly two weeks of intensive discussions, the mission visited four countries and met representatives of nine African Governments, including the SACIM group, as well as a number of non-governmental organisations, field workers and independent experts.
The mission was thus able to gain a valuable insight into the problems which African countries face in trying to conserve their elephant populations. It recognised the validity of the concerns of the countries seeking a

reopening of trade, whose elephant populations were stable or increasing, and remained relatively unaffected by poaching—except possibly in Zimbabwe, which has had some recent problems.
On the other hand, other range states felt equally strongly that any relaxation in the CITES trade ban would put their own more vulnerable elephant populations at risk. From all Governments, there was a recognition that countries should be able, other things being equal, to use wildlife sustainably, and that trade could play a part in that.
It was therefore clear to the mission that there was both scope and need to work harder to diminish the misunderstandings and tension evident at the CITES conference. In the light of its discussions, the mission concluded that the best way of promoting dialogue and improving understanding would be to promote a further meeting of key African elephant range states and other interested parties to prepare the ground for whatever might be proposed at the 1994 CITES conference.
Following the mission, we consulted extensively on the proposals for a further meeting, which were supported in principle by African states, our EC partners and other interested parties. We proposed a meeting covering the concerns of the SACIM countries and South Africa as well as those of the other African range states.
We hoped that such a meeting would provide an opportunity for southern African countries and range states from elsewhere in Africa to explain their concerns in a calmer climate than has been possible at CITES conferences.
We have since been trying to finalise an agenda on the basis I have outlined, but this has not proved to be an easy task. In particular, the SACIM countries have suggested that the main purpose of the discussion should be to explore the possibility of persuading others to accept the SACIM position on the reopening of the ivory trade.
While we recognise SACIM's particular problems and concerns, and agree that it is important that any meeting should devote a substantial part of the agenda to those concerns, other parties have indicated that any meeting should allow enough room for their perspectives and points of view to be considered alongside SACIM's. That must be right. The conservation of the African elephant is essentially an African issue, which will be resolved only if we can find a way forward that all parts of Africa can support.
We are now trying to draw up a balanced agenda that provides an adequate opportunity for all the regions of Africa to express their views on this complex and sensitive subject. I remain hopeful that we shall be able to find a basis for discussion that is acceptable to all those involved.
Some African countries have already made impressive progress in improving the management of their wildlife resources. In Kenya, for example, the Kenyan wildlife service, under Richard Leakey's leadership, has dramatically improved the management of Kenya's wildlife and its network of protected areas. Kenya has succeeded in virtually eliminating elephant poaching, and has made impressive strides in developing intelligence networks and increasing the involvement of local communities.
Kenya's experience has shown how much the conservation of Africa's elephants and other wildlife depends on national wildlife departments that are adequately resourced, well organised and well managed. The problem is that not all elephant range states have the resources and expertise that they need to monitor,


manage and control their elephant populations. That is why I acknowledged in Kyoto that the burden of conserving elephants for all our children should not fall on African countries alone. I was therefore very pleased to be able to announce during the conference that the Government were committing an additional £600,000 to support a number of elephant conservation projects in Africa.
Following the conference, we were able to establish a close and constructive dialogue with African countries with strategically important elephant populations, and with conservation groups experienced in setting up and managing elephant conservation projects. As a result, we identified worthwhile projects to strengthen the capacity of African wildlife departments to combat poaching, and to assist local communities to develop conservation measures.
We have provided support for, among others, the wildlife species protection department in Zambia; the Botswana wildlife department, to purchase equipment needed for anti-poaching activities; and a project to involve local communities more closely in the conservation and management of desert elephants in Namibia. We are also co-financing non-governmental organisations in the community-level Campfire programme of wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe. The support of local people in Africa is vital if long-term protection for endangered wildlife is to be sustained.
More generally, since 1990 the Government have contributed nearly £20 million to wildlife conservation projects in Africa through the overseas aid programme, many of which contribute directly or indirectly to elephant conservation.
Good progress has been made since the introduction of the CITES ivory trade ban at the beginning of 1990. The market for ivory has collapsed, and elephant poaching has been dramatically reduced. Elephant

populations are recovering. However, poaching is still not under control in a number of African countries—hence the fears of many that a resumption of legal trade in elephants, without watertight controls, could provide a cover for illegitimate activities. The continuing and appalling decline of rhino populations in Africa is testimony to that.
We have therefore welcomed moves to improve cross-border co-operation and the exchange of intelligence on the illegal wildlife trade. A conference held in Lusaka in December last year, attended by law enforcement experts from a number of African countries and other interested governmental and non-governmental agencies—including our Overseas Development Administration—proposed the establishment of a task force of law enforcement officers from a number of African countries to investigate and smash criminal networks involved in illegal wildlife trafficking. Negotiations on that proposal are continuing, and we very much hope that they will be successfully concluded during the course of 1994.
We have, I believe, demonstrated our commitment by providing cash for elephant conservation projects, and through the prominent part that we have played—and will continue to play—in international efforts to promote dialogue, improve understanding and develop consensus. We have always made it clear that we shall seek to maintain the ivory trade ban for as long as necessary; however, trade bans alone cannot guarantee the elephant's survival. We shall continue to work constructively with African elephant range states, our EC partners, NGOs, other CITES parties and national and international conservation bodies that share our concern for the future of these magnificent creatures, described by John Donne as "nature's great masterpiece".
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Two o'clock.